Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Barracks, Aberdeen (Accommodation)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a comprehensive staement on the living conditions and accommodation in the Bridge of Don Barracks, Aberdeen, for married and unmarried soldiers, respectively; for how many married soldiers accommodation for their wives and children has not been provided; what steps are being taken to provide accommodation for those wives and children: and when it will be available.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): There is accommodation for 40 married soldiers at Bridge of Don. The married quarters are in good condition and, where necessary, modernisation of kitchens, heating and lighting is being carried out this year. There are at present 12 families on the waiting list who will be accommodated as vacancies occur. Meanwhile we are also trying to find private accommodation which is suitable to be rented as a War Department hiring. Families are also encouraged to bring such accommodation to our notice.
About two-thirds of the single soldiers are housed in permanent buildings which are in good condition; the rest are in huts. These huts are being redecorated, and improved heating is planned. Their condition is generally satisfactory.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these barracks have been there for a very long time, and that steps should have been taken long ago to see that married soldiers are not unnecessarily and unwillingly separated from their

wives and families, which is bad for their happiness and morale? Will the Minister, therefore, expedite the steps being taken and see that accommodation is provided for married couples?

Mr. Amery: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that in this barracks there is a larger proportion of married quarters to the scale of barracks as a whole than in most barracks.

Territorial Army

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the decision not to call up National Service men for reserve training during 1957, what future he envisages for the Territorial Army; and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): Regarding the general position, I cannot add to the Answer which I gave last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). But I would like to take this opportunity of saying that we are most anxious to accept as many officers and airmen as possible from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force who may wish to volunteer for the Territorial Army.

Mr. Strachey: I am certainly not pressing the right hon. Gentleman to solve the problem of the Territorial Army in an answer to a supplementary question. But in view of the fact that his Answer amounts to saying that its original function of providing the nucleus of a reserve Army has gone, will the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to telling us, at any rate by the time the Army Estimates are presented, what must be the function of the Territorial Army in our defence set-up? Otherwise I think that there will be great discouragement.

Mr. Hare: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I can assure him that, as soon as we are in a position to do so, we shall have something to say.

Sir L. Ropner: Regarding annual training, can my right hon. Friend say whether, in his opinion, sufficient thought has been given to the small number of Territorials who will be going for annual training, and how difficult it is for units, the establishment of which may be many hundreds, to carry out any sort of training when only a dozen or two go to camp?

Mr. Hare: Again, I appreciate the difficulties. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the volunteers will carry out their annual training, and this year training will not be above brigade level.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Territorial Army has been considerably "mucked about" in the last eighteen months or two years and that it will not survive much more "mucking about." Will the Minister concentrate his mind on the problem of making an announcement, not later than the time of the presentation of the Army Estimates, about what are to be the purposes of the Territorial Army, and how he proposes to carry them out?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am giving my mind to this matter, and I will make a statement as soon as possible, but I cannot give a date.

Establishments (Report)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the Report of the Hull Committee.

Mr. Hare: No, Sir. As I explained in a Written Answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 23rd October, the Report is unsuitable for publication for reasons of security.

Mr. Strachey: In view of the fact that an unauthorised précis of the main conclusions of the Report has appeared in The Times, would it not be wise to let us know at any rate its main features—a bowdlerised version of the Report, or something like that? The present position is unsatisfactory, and we do not know whether The Times report is accurate or not.

Mr. Hare: The Times was dealing with the changes in organisation, size and shape of the Army which would result from the recommendations of the Report. It did not actually publish details of the Report itself.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision in this matter, because it is really difficult for hon. Members to have a worthwhile opinion on this important subject without information? As to security, surely my right hon. Friend could

exclude anything that was particularly secret?

Mr. Hare: I will consider that. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this Report was never intended for publication. It was intended as a confidential guide for the Army Council when it came to consider the future size and shape of the Army.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that The Times report purported to give the conclusions of this Report? Surely we ought to have before us some statement from the War Office which will tell us whether that is correct or not, and give us the main outline.

Mr. Hare: "Purported", the House will have noticed, is the word which the right hon. Gentleman used. I will consider the matter carefully.

Camps, Nikalaos

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War when Nikalaos Camp, Famagusta, was first established; what proportion of the troops stationed there are accommodated in tents; and for how much longer it is intended that this camp shall be occupied.

Mr. J. Amery: There are three camps in the vicinity of Nikalaos. These were established in 1946, 1949 and 1951 respectively. Nearly all of the living accommodation consists of tents with concrete bases and electric light; messes, cookhouses, offices, and stores are mainly in huts; but some brick buildings have also been put up. Plans are in hand to replace this temporary accommodation by permanent barracks.

Mr. Johnson: How is it that the Royal Air Force camps immediately adjacent to these camps consists, although it has only been established for two years, entirely of barrack-block accommodation? Why is the Army always so much worse treated?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend will appreciate that we had to give priority to units moved from the Canal Zone.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War what action has been taken during the last three months to improve the ablution and latrine accommodation at Nikalaos Camp, Famagusta.

Mr. J. Amery: The provision of additional ablution and latrine accommodation at one of the camps at Nikalaos was approved at the beginning of this month and work will be started shortly.

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend expect that there will be a considerable improvement? The information given to me by his predecessor last December indicated that people had to go two hundred or three hundred yards from their sleeping accommodation to get to this latrine and ablution section?

Mr. Amery: I understand that improvements are already in hand and that some have already been carried out. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Senior Officers (Active List)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the generals, lieutenant-generals and major-generals, respectively, on the active list of the British Army, are commanding formations; how many are employed at the War Office; and how many are not employed on any specific duties.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War how many generals, lieutenant-generals and major-generals are now on the active list; and how many of these hold commands.

Mr. Hare: One hundred and forty-eight officers of the rank of major-general or above are on the active list; 43 are in command; 40 are at the War Office; 51 are holding staff appointments elsewhere; 6 are on leave before retirement and 8 on leave between appointments or not yet appointed.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proportion of senior officers—major-generals and above—who are not holding commands is very high? Is it not time that some pruning was done in those ranks, because the proportion, if I am not incorrect, is higher than it was before the war, taking into account the size of the Army?

Mr. Hare: There must obviously be a considerable number of generals in directing posts at the War Office, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will see that the number is kept down to the minimum.

Mr. Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend not answer my Question in the form in which I asked it, that is, to give me the details of the three different ranks and to say whether there are not far too many still employed?

Mr. Hare: That would involve a great number of figures [HON. MEMBERS: "Three."] No, it would be far more than that. It would be a very long reply, but I will see that my hon. Friend gets those figures.

Mr. Shinwell: What are 40 major-generals doing at the War Office? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter, and not seek to evade the issue by telling the House that these major-generals are engaged in direction of one kind or another? What are they actually doing?

Mr. Hare: I do not know how many there were in the right hon. Gentleman's time, but I think there was a considerable number. I assure him that I have every intention of keeping the numbers down.

Blanco Stocks

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Army is holding ten years' stock of blanco.

Mr. Hare: No blanco has been bought since 1951—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the accumulation of stock is due to reduced rate of consumption which was not foreseen at the time of the last purchases.

Mr. Swingler: While appreciating the cleverness of the Secretary of State's reply, may I ask whether something cannot be done to dispose of the stock in a more useful way? While appreciating, too, the action taken to reduce consumption, may I ask whether the Secretary of State will also take action to get rid of some of the surplus stock?

Mr. Hare: My reply was not clever; it was factual. I am taking steps to see that some of this very large accumulation of stock, bought in 1951, will be released.

Mr. Nabarro: Does not this large Socialist investment in blanco demonstrate the firm belief of the Opposition in the merits of "bull"?

Mr. Shinwell: Are not the large stocks of blanco purchased by the Labour Government still in good condition?

Mr. Hare: I will give that one to the right hon. Gentleman.

Surplus Stocks

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he is taking to stop the accumulation of surplus stocks in the Army.

Mr. Hare: So far as possible, surplus stocks are being used to reduce the need for current purchases. Meanwhile urgent arrangements are being made to dispose of all items which are no longer needed. New orders are being related to our revised requirements.

Mr. Swingler: Has the Secretary of State studied the Third Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, with particular reference to the statement that it was the policy in the War Office to spend up to the hilt? Will he pay attention to that fact, and possibly issue some directive that if Parliament is asked to vote more money than is necessary for the accumulation of stocks there will not be irresponsible spending in his Department?

Mr. Hare: As I explained to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) last week, I am not satisfied with the general position and am going into the matter personally. Everything possible is done to dispose of unnecessary stocks.

Mr. Simmons: Is there any connection between the accumulation of surplus major-generals and the accumulation of surplus stocks?

Mr. Hare: It should be in a reverse direction.

Mr. H. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has said two weeks running that he was not satisfied about this position. Is he aware that, following very strong representations from this side of the House last year, the then Prime Minister said that he would hold a special inquiry into the whole subject and that the inquiry was put into the hands of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister? Does the answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman considers that the present Prime Minister's inquiries have proved quite abortive?

Mr. Hare: It does not mean anything of the sort. I want to see that proper decisions are arrived at. I hope to deal with this matter in my Estimates speech, which will be in a fairly short time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does the Minister's earlier statement mean that much of this stock will be sold back to the suppliers, or that it will be put on the market so that the taxpayers, who have already paid once for it, may have a chance of buying cheaply items such as binoculars and bicycles?

Mr. Hare: The method of disposal must depend upon the type of commodity involved.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to reduce the stock of 346,568 chairs held by his Department.

Mr. J. Amery: Surplus chairs will be disposed of as soon as possible.

Mr. Lipton: What is being done about it? Does the hon. Gentleman not know that these chairs exist? Why does he not get on with the job now instead of saying he is going to do it as soon as possible? Is he aware that even if the whole of the Armed Forces wanted to stage a "sit-down" strike, there would still be too many chairs?

Mr. Amery: The actual surplus for disposal is only between 80,000 and 90,000. The hon. Gentleman will know that even the most active soldier has to sit down sometimes.

Captain Pilkington: Although the whole House will approve of it, can my hon. Friend say for what particular crime the hon. Colonel the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has been reduced to the ranks?

Barracks, Ripon (Sleeping Accommodation)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of removing cubicles from the other ranks sleeping accommodation at Harper Barracks, Ripon; and whether the expenditure was authorised with his knowledge and consent.

Mr. J. Amery: This partitioning was removed by members of the unit at no cost, and I am told that it has been


successful in improving lighting and heating. Authority for the work was given by the local headquarters who are empowered to do this without consulting my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wigg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this separate-cubicle sleeping accommodation was instituted in these barracks in order to provide amenities for the troops, and that at the first opportunity, before it is given a trial, it is removed, without consultation with the War Office? Is not this a gross waste of public money? Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into the state of morale in this unit? I can assure him that, according to my sources of information, many young men who would have undertaken a Regular engagement because they wanted to be Regular soldiers, were put off by the treatment which they received.

Mr. Amery: I am told that the change has resulted in improvements in lighting and heating. I will make inquiries into the state of morale. I find it hard to believe that people could have been put off recruiting on account of these matters.

Cyprus (Expenditure)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the weekly sum he is now spending on Cyprus; and his proposals for economy.

Mr. Hare: The extra weekly cost of maintaining British soldiers at present stationed in Cyprus in that theatre instead of in the United Kingdom is about £85,000. Any economy must depend on developments in Cyprus and, in particular, the restoration of internal security.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there might have been another £85,000 cost a week if his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had had his way? Could he persuade his hon. Friend to use his powerful influence in the Government to get our troops removed from Cyprus, because, with our commitments in Jordan having gone—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."1 —and with Cyprus being comparatively useless as a base, the time has come to reconsider its liquidation as a base?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member's assumptions are always very difficult to follow, and this one is particularly difficult to follow. All I can say is that the troops are doing a good job of work there, and

have been extremely successful in the last six months in their operations against the terrorists.

Overseas Garrisons

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the future of the United Kingdom Prospect Garrison stationed in Bermuda.

Mr. Hare: We are reviewing all the Army's overseas commitments, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement about any particular overseas garrison.

Mr. Bennett: When the Minister considers this Question, will he please bear in mind, most seriously, that this small garrison in Bermuda should not be looked at only in the light of its military or strategic value? Bermuda is an island intensely loyal to this country, but already perforce looks towards America in its economy, and its defence is largely carried out by the United States. Hence would it not be very wrong and foolish further to weaken its symbolic ties with this country, more particularly as only recently Admiralty House, which has been there for over a couple of centuries in what was one of our oldest naval outposts overseas, was removed? If what I have said does not convince my right hon. Friend, will he further bear in mind the folly of risking weakening any further our ties with a country that contributes one-tenth annually of all the dollars into the sterling area, much to the benefit of this country?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely we have spent enough time on this Question.

Maryhill Barracks

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in converting and modernising existing accommodation suitable for married quarters at Maryhill Barracks; his plans for the future of this depot; whether it is to be retained by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Amery: The modernisation of 38 married quarters is almost completed


and a start will shortly be made on 29 more. I cannot, at this stage, say anything about the future of Maryhill Barracks, as this depends on the general view of the Army's future needs, which is now taking place.

Mr. Hannan: But can the hon. Gentleman not confirm that this depot was to be removed to Cardross? If that is so, can he not go a little further than he has done in his reply, and give a little more information?

Mr. Amery: It is perfectly true that there was a proposal originally to build a new barracks for the depot of the Highland Light Infantry at Cardross and to move the other occupants of Maryhill Barracks elsewhere; but all work on the Cardross scheme has been suspended, and I do not believe it will be revived, although that is awaiting decision.

Mr. Steele: Would not the Minister confer with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who yesterday in this House made an appeal for industry to get outside Glasgow altogether? Why has this building at Cardross not been proceeded with, because it would be an opportunity for the Government to give a lead to industry by removing Maryhill Barracks from Glasgow altogether?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

Equipment and Stores, Egypt

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount of equipment and stores remaining in Egypt which belong to the United Kingdom; and what arrangements are being made for their return.

Mr. Hare: About 2,700 vehicles, 18,000 tons of ammunition and approximately 120,000 tons of other stores. Their return or compensation for them is a matter for discussion with the Egyptian Government in due course.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister any hope that any of this material will be returned, and can he say whether any of the material is of any value?

Mr. Hare: A lot of it is of very considerable value. I cannot forecast what negotiations will, in fact, take place with the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend say how much the stores are really worth?

Mr. Hare: I have given an answer to that question earlier. The value is something in the neighbourhood of £60 million.

Stores (Purchase Procedure)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, before any further purchases of stores are made by his Department, he will take steps to ensure that requirements are not available in depots at home and overseas.

Mr. Hare: This is already done.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has now taken an inventory of all the stores and stocks in the possession of the War Office, because unless he has done so, how does he know what he has?

Mr. Hare: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, stocks at central depots are taken into account. Command depots at home and abroad review their stocks frequently and report surpluses to the central depot.

Forces, Germany

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to make a statement giving details about the reduction in size of the British forces in Germany; and what reduction of expenditure will result.

Mr. Hare: I cannot yet make any statement.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the country would welcome a statement to the effect that our troops were being withdrawn from Germany? Does he not read the powerful leading articles in the Daily Express on this matter, and is he so far behind public opinion?

Mr. Hare: I do read the powerful leaders in the Daily Express, but I cannot, in answer to a Question, prejudge the result of any discussions at present going on with the Western European Union and with other Governments concerned.

Seriously III Service Men (Next of Kin)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue instructions that when Service men serving at home or


overseas are admitted to hospital seriously ill, the next of kin is immediately informed.

Mr. J. Amery: Instructions already provide for the next of kin to be informed as soon as possible after a soldier has been placed on the dangerously or seriously ill list in a military or civil hospital at home or abroad.

Mr. Hunter: Arising out of that reply, would the Under-Secretary of State see that these instructions are carried out by the military authorities? A soldier constituent of mine was dangerously ill in a military hospital in Gibraltar, and his mother and father were never informed about it. I hope that instructions will be issued to the military authorities.

Mr. Amery: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers, and indeed I am writing to him about it, as I have just had information from Gibraltar about the circumstances. In fact, the soldier was not placed on the dangerously ill list; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would await the letter that I am writing to him before he forms a final judgment on this matter.

Three-year Engagement

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War what has been the total effect to date of the Regular engagement of three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve upon Army manpower.

Mr. Hare: One hundred and six thousand eight hundred and ninety-four men enlisted on this engagement between its introduction in November, 1951, and the end of 1956. About 40,000 of these men are still serving. Some of them have already served for more than the three years for which they originally enlisted. The percentage figures of those who have re-engaged so far are already known to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the rate of prolongation, but have he and his staff judged the effect on the Army manpower position resulting from the rate of prolongation being 5 per cent. as against his predecessor's estimate of 33⅓ per cent.? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it? Is it not time

to go back on the three-year engagement and endeavour to get men to enlist for four or five years, because does he not agree that so long as this engagement continues, we are condemned indefinitely to a system of National Service?

Mr. Hare: I think that this engagement has been disappointing, and I am now examining the whole question of future Regular service engagements.

Recruitment

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War the average number of Regular recruits per annum the Army expects to recruit in the future, apart from those entering on engagements of three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve, and the average number of years it is anticipated such recruits will serve.

Mr. Hare: Assuming present conditions and existing terms of service, I estimate that about 23,000 men will enlist during the next financial year on engagements other than three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve, and that the average length of service of such recruits will be about five years. I am not prepared to forecast further ahead.

Mr. Wigg: Would not the Minister agree that, on the basis of those figures, this country is foredoomed, in spite of fantastic expenditure, to a Regular Army of under 100,000 other ranks? Surely he and his colleagues must do something about this immediately.

Mr. Hare: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's forecast; I do not think that it bears any relation to the truth.

Overseas Commitments

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what redundancy there will be amongst senior and junior officers on the active list as a result of proposals by Her Majesty's Government to reduce overseas commitments.

Mr. Hare: I cannot vet make a forecast.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the continued, inspired Press reports about withdrawal of our troops from positions overseas is bound to have a deleterious effect on many of the junior and senior officers,


who must be anticipating some distribution of bowler hats? Therefore, does he not consider that he ought to make a statement to this House as early as possible, and not later than his presentation of the Army Estimates?

Mr. Hare: I cannot give any definite date as to when I shall be able to make a statement on the subject, but I understand and sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I can assure him that there will not be unnecessary delay.

Military Guard, Bank of England

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the interests of economy, he will discontinue the military guard at the Bank of England.

Mr. Hare: No, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not time that this antiquated bit of mumbo-jumbo should be ended? Could not the City of London Police adequately look after what is left of our gold and dollar reserves?

Mr. Hare: No, Sir, I think it would be a pity to do away with what is really an ancient tradition. It has been going on since 1780, and not all things which have been going on since 1780 are necessarily bad. What is more, as I think the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) knows, this traditional duty is popular with the men who perform it because they receive a special allowance.

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the hopes of financiers associated with preserving the traditions of the City of London, will my right hon. Friend set his mind against any abolition of such traditions as this?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend will have heard the Answer to the Question.

Mr. Isaacs: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to his decision, for Londoners—and he knows that I am a Londoner—like this little bit of colour? What is more, this little bit of colour in our streets is of as much value to the forces as the retention of military titles by some people.

Mr. Hare: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Once again, he has said what he really thinks, irrespective of whether it is popular.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothing (Flame Proofing)

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the formulae of all powders and liquids sold for temporary flame proofing of clothing must be shown on the bottle or packet.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): No, Sir.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is the Minister aware of the danger of allowing these packets to be issued containing substances of supposed flame-resisting qualities unless full explanation is available to the public, because in many cases if these formulae are used only once or twice the garments on which they are used become more dangerous if the use of the same formula is not continued?

Mr. Erroll: I have considered this matter carefully. Apart from other considerations, publication of the formula by itself would not in fact help the housewife.

Mr. Marquand: is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most widely advertised preparations of this kind consists very largely of boric acid and thus carries with it the risk of borax poisoning, particularly dangerous to infants? If he cannot introduce legislation, will he expedite the preparation of a British Standards Specification of flammability, so that housewives may know what they are really buying?

Mr. Erroll: Borax does not appear as a poison in the Poisons List under the Pharmacy and Medicine Act, 1941. As regards standards of flammability, the British Standards Institution is pressing on with this important work as fast as it can.

Mr. Marquand: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to an article in the Lancet of 4th February, 1950, which does suggest that this preparation really is dangerous?

Mr. Erroll: I have not seen the article. If the right hon. Gentleman would care to let me see a copy, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Imported Cars (Customs Duty)

Mr. Usborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the tariffs which now protect the British motor industry from the imports of cars from factories in the Common Market countries; and if he will give a table showing the estimated ex-tariff list prices in Britain of six popular European models compared to list prices presently charged.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Motor cars manufactured in the Common Market countries are liable on importation to a Customs duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem. I cannot provide the table of prices requested as it would disclose the terms of trading of individual firms.

Mr. Usborne: If the Minister of State cannot give us the actual figures, could he tell us whether in fact the prices so charged would mean that competition would probably considerably reduce the labour force in the car industry in this country over the next five or ten years?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is dangerous to make any speculative generalisations about these matters. The adjustment of prices consequent upon any removal of duty would, of course, be a matter for the trade.

Mr. Edelman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that wages in the French motor industry are 25 per cent. lower than British wages and that the motor industry there is more highly automatic, so that, if Britain is to enter into the Common Market, so far as the motor industry is concerned it can only be under conditions of proper planning and suitable division of labour, because otherwise the results will be disastrous?

Mr. Walker-Smith: All these and other relevant considerations are, of course, borne in mind; but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that negotiations for an industrial Free Trade Area would be an overall operation rather than one conducted industry by industry.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the obvious fears felt by the workers of Coventry and Birmingham arising from the proposed Free Trade Area, will my right hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend the President discuss the problem with the trade unions affected before a final decision is arrived at?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Very wide-ranging discussions are going on; but I would remind my hon. Friend and the House that though there may be grounds for apprehension there are also advantages to be seen. We need to look at these things with the eyes of faith as well as of fear.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House what special consideration the Government have given or are giving to the effect any such plan as a Common Market might have on the Lancashire cotton industry? Would he assure the Lancashire cotton industry that, whatever the advantages may be to other people, it will not be expected to pay the cost of them?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think I should be at risk of incurring your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, if I replied about the cotton industry in response to a Question about the motor car industry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people think that the British motor industry is in need of a little active competition from the Continent?

Knitting Needles and Fishing Tackle (Import Duties)

Mr. Usborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present tariff which protects the knitting needle and fishing tackle industry in Britain from competition from the Common Market countries.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The present import duty on hand knitting needles is 17½ per cent. ad valorem. There is no single rate of duty for fishing tackle, the principal duties on which are 15 per cent. for reels and steel rods, 20 per cent. for iron or steel hooks, and 25 per cent. for most other types of fishing tackle used by anglers.

Mr. Usborne: If this Free Trade Area is created, is it not fairly obvious that the knitting needle industry of the Midlands will face very severe competition from German firms, and is the Minister doing anything about trying to direct some alternative industry into the areas which will be hardest hit as a result of the Free Trade Area?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that all this is a long-term proposition. One thing that British industry cannot in any event do is to contract out of the necessity of competition which nature imposes upon it.

Protective Tariffs

Mr. Usborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the 12 heaviest in incidence of the British protective tariffs which will need to be progressively reduced following the creation of the European Free Trade Area: and if he will also list the 12 most substantial tariff barriers to our exports to this Area which will similarly have to go.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the Answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Usborne: While not denying the need to face and overcome competition, may I ask the Minister whether it is not also perfectly clear that, in the next decade or so, some industries are going to have to contract in order that other industries may successfully expand? Will he say what steps he proposes to take to take care of the dislocation which his action is going to create? Is he planning that carefully, and will he encourage industries which will be expanding to take the place of industries which are contracting, in order to be able to use up the labour of those industries which will become redundant?

Mr. Walker-Smith: All these are very interesting questions but they do not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, which is purely for information regarding the incidence of certain protective tariffs.

Following is the Answer:

The following goods bear ad valorem duties of more than 33⅓ per cent. on importation into the United Kingdom:



Per cent.


Optical glass and optical elements
50


Optical instruments, including most cameras
50


Articles (other than yarns, tissues and apparel) containing more than 20 per cent of silk or artificial silk
43⅓ or 42


Optical lanterns for still projection
42½


Cinematograph cameras (9·5 mm. or less)
40


Box cameras
40


Bearded needles
40

I am unable to list in order of weight of incidence the protective duties on imports into the United Kingdom which are wholly or partly specific in character, as the ad valorem incidence of such duties can vary widely from one importation to the next. The following are among the items liable to specific or composite rates of duty of which the incidence is sometimes high:

Are lamp carbons.
Artificial silk waste.
Silk and artificial silk yarns.
Silk and artificial silk tissues.
Zipp fasteners.

As regards tariffs affecting our exports, it is not necessarily the highest duties which prevent the most trade, and it would not be practicable to isolate 12 particular tariffs as the most substantial barriers to our trade. I understand that there are duties in the range of 35 to 40 per cent. in countries which are prospective members of a free trade area on, among other goods, road vehicles and parts, vacuum cleaners and other electrical appliances, tractors, toys, domestic porcelain and some furniture. There are duties above this level on some carpets (80 per cent.) and on certain chemicals (several at 50 per cent. and some ranging up to 100 per cent.).

Rumania and East Germany

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate discussions with Rumania and Eastern Germany with a view to negotiating a commercial agreement with these countries.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As regards Rumania, I have nothing to add to the Answer given by the then President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 4th December last. As to East Germany, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 31st January, Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the East German authorities as the Government of the Soviet Zone of Germany.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that most countries in Europe, including West Germany, do not recognise that Government but are nevertheless trading with them? One of the biggest trading countries of Europe is, in fact, doing very well out of it. Why should not we, without any political ties, at least do some trade, because we might thereby get rid of some of our motor cars and some of the other goods which we now have difficulty in disposing of?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We are doing trade with East Germany. Last year, our imports from East Germany totalled £2,400,000 and our exports rather more than £1,500,000.

European Free Trade Area

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade which duties levied on goods coming from countries outside the proposed Free Trade Area it is permanently impossible to increase by reason of the provisions of Article XXIV, paragraph 5, section B of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Walker-Smith: None, Sir. But we would, of course, still be committed to countries outside the Free Trade Area in respect of duties already bound in our tariff negotiations under the General Agreement.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the effects of the proposed European Free Trade Area on British trade with Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I see no reason why the industrial Free Trade Area we have proposed should adversely affect our trade with other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Hynd: Whilst wishing this new proposal well, may I ask whether it would not mean that goods from the countries in the European Common Market would get more easily into the Commonwealth and thereby affect British trade?

Mr. Walker-Smith: What is proposed is an industrial Free Trade Area in Europe. The bulk of our Commonwealth trade would be excluded from its scope under the proposed exclusion of agriculture and foodstuffs.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards for British industry and agriculture will be embodied in the proposed treaty for a European Free Trade Area, and what protection or compensation will be provided for any workers who may be displaced.

Mr. Fell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that Britain will not agree to enter the Common Market unless agricultural products and food are expressly excluded from the arrangements.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Detailed negotiations have not yet begun and I cannot at this stage add to the statement of the

Government's general approach as set out in the Memorandum to O.E.E.C. (Cmnd. 72). The Memorandum clearly stipulates that agricultural products and food should be excluded from the scope of the proposed industrial Free Trade Area.

Mr. Hynd: In the pending negotiations, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the valuable experience gained in connection with the Coal and Steel Community, where certain safeguards have been successfully operated?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. I am sure that we shall have the experience of the Coal and Steel Community in mind.

Mr. Fell: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend two questions? Will it not be difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to guide and co-ordinate the working party with regard to agriculture, in which he will be representing a country in a minority of one? Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are countries throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth that would like him to give a categorical assurance today on the question of agriculture and food?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As to the second part of that question, I do not think I can usefully add to the Answer which I have already given. In regard to the first part, I have every confidence in the capacity of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in this and all other matters.

Mr. Fell: In view of the quite unsatisfactory lack of assurance in reply to my Question, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Commonwealth Trade (Tariff Preference)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what preference is enjoyed by Commonwealth countries in regard to exporting their products to this country; and what benefits they give to imports from this country.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Almost all Commonwealth exports to this country are admitted free of protective duty and in addition many of them have the benefit of a tariff preference over foreign goods. United Kingdom exports to Commonwealth countries do not enjoy a corresponding exemption from protective


duties, but a large proportion enjoy significant, and in some cases substantial, margins of preference.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister doing what he can to achieve reciprocity between the Commonwealth countries and this country in this respect?

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Member, with his experience of these matters, will be aware, we do not measure reciprocity in trade industry by industry or country by country, but look at the totality of our trade.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Register)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Register of Restrictive Trade Practices is yet open to inspection by the public.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I understand that after the close of the first registration period on 28th February, the Registrar will need a little time in which to examine and classify the information which will have been sent to him before he opens the Register.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that members of the public who have recently called on the Registrar have been told that no single agreement has yet been inscribed on the Register? As it is now six months since the Act was passed, does this not bear out the fears of the Opposition that the whole of this procedure would be much too slow?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. If what the right hon. Gentleman says be the case, I would assume that it is gratifying confirmation that a number of restrictive practices are in the course of being abandoned or revised, thus fulfilling the hopes which we held out to the House.

Floating Exhibitions

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Japanese Machinery Floating Fair, consisting of a large vessel of 10,000 tons refitted for this purpose, is travelling around the South-East Asian countries exhibiting Japanese machinery and machine tools of all descriptions; and if he has considered adopting similar methods to exhibit British manufactured goods in that and other areas.

Mr. Walker-Smith: When similar proposals have been examined in the past, it has been found that British industry did not consider a floating exhibition the most effective way of displaying its products and was unlikely to give adequate support. Our commercial officers in South-East Asia are, however, reporting on the results achieved by the Japanese venture and I shall seek the views of my Exhibitions Advisory Committee on their reports.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the Japanese attribute very great importance to this market in South-East Asia? They have already doubled their 1939 production. They have produced the largest super-tanker in the world, whereas we are doing nothing. We are only spending money on a war in the jungle instead of doing something to improve our trade.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There are difficulties and disadvantages connected with this form of exhibition; but I assure the hon. Member that as soon as I get the reports I will take the expert view of the Exhibitions Advisory Committee.

Jaguar Car Works, Coventry (Fire)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fire at the Jaguar car works, Coventry, on 12th February last; and, as this firm is one of Britain's major dollar earners, if he will make a statement upon the estimated effect on exports.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I know that the House will join with me in expressing sympathy with this virile and enterprising company in the blow which has befallen it. I cannot assess the effects on exports, but I am confident that the company will do all it can to minimise them. I am informed there have been no cancellations of export orders for Jaguar cars and that production has already started again.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that we in Coventry are very proud of this firm and would like to join with him in the tributes paid to management and to workers alike in face of this disaster? Is he also aware, however, that it means that 2,000 more workers in


Coventry are now on short-time, because the firm is working three days a week for each section? Will the Minister join with the Minister of Supply in trying to see whether extra contracts cannot be sent to Coventry to help to mitigate this further disaster?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I certainly have the last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question in mind. The management of the Jaguar company is, however, planning to reabsorb these workers and to start a staggered three-day week for that purpose.

Exports and Imports (Shipping Delays)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade approximately to what extent exports from and imports to this country now suffer from delay in delivery owing to suspension of commerce through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The rerouting of shipping round the Cape led to a delay in arrival of certain imports in November and part of December. Arrivals in January, however, apart from oil supplies, were at a very high level, and it would appear that much of the initial delay has been made good. Taking the three months November-January together, the total volume of imports, excluding oil, showed little change from the average of the first ten months of 1956.
Export shipments up to the end of January have been only very slightly affected by shipping delays, although their delivery abroad will, of course, in certain cases take somewhat longer.

Mr. Sorensen: To what extent has the delay, such as it is, been reflected in the prices both of exports and of imports?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot give the hon. Member a precise figure unless he is good enough to put that Question on the Order Paper.

Assay Offices (Labour Conditions)

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee on Hallmarking appointed by him include the examination of labour relations and conditions of labour in assay offices.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir, but I have no doubt that the Departmental Committee will consider conditions of labour in so far as they affect the issues covered by the Committee's terms of reference.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is desirable that labour relations and labour conditions should be considered by the Committee?

Mr. Erroll: I think that is another question.

Exports to Asian Countries

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent exports and re-exports from this country to China and to other Asian countries have increased in 1956 compared with 1955; whether this market continues to expand; what further action has been taken to ensure that appropriate commodities for export to those areas comply with the stipulations and characteristics desired by the importers: and in particular what are the exports and re-exports of rubber and rubber goods.

Mr. Walker-Smith: United Kingdom exports and re-exports to China increased from £7·9 million in 1955 to £10·8 million in 1956, and to the principal Asian countries from £351 million to £415 million between those years. Exports and re-exports of rubber and rubber manufactures to China and to the other countries were £12,844 and £8·5 million in 1956.
With permission, I will circulate the figures for the principal Asian countries in the OFFICIAL REPORT, from which the hon. Member will see that our experience in the individual countries has differed. I am confident that United Kingdom exporters will take advantage of all the opportunities offered by these important markets and that they are well aware of the need to pay full attention to the requirements of their customers.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister of State aware that he has not fully answered the penultimate part of my Question, and that there are some exports which do not comply with the requests and desires of the purchasers? Is anything done by his Department about that matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman has specific instances of those, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know, and I will look into them.

Following are the figures:

UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS, INCLUDING RE-EXPORTS, TO CHINA AND OTHER SELECTED ASIAN COUNTRIES IN 1955 AND 1956


£'000



Total 1955
1956
Rubber, including synthetic and reclaimed, and rubber manufactures


1955
1956


China
7,946
10,789
9
13


India
131,372
169,749
519
1,451


Pakistan
36,687
32,821
837
1,056


Singapore
38,548
41,990
1,137
1,111


Federation of Malaya
35,991
40,429
1,344
1,206


Ceylon
21,844
26,027
642
710


Hong Kong
25,880
33,142
269
286


Burma
22,036
17,444
241
397


Thailand
12,309
13,720
635
634


Indonesia
11,444
16,132
240
1,498


Japan
14,394
23,872
75
168


Total selected Asian countries (other than China)
350,505
415,326
5,939
8,517

Residential Caravans (Hire Purchase)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the particular action he is taking regarding protection against repossession afforded to hirers of caravans which serve as a home where the hirer is unemployed or on short time.

Mr. Erroll: Although the protection against repossession afforded to hirers of residential caravans by the Hire-Purchase Acts applies only to agreements under which the hire-purchase price does not exceed £300, I have no evidence that unwarranted repossessions are taking place where the agreement is not covered by the Acts, and I do not consider any change in the limit to be necessary.

Miss Burton: While, for a change, expressing my appreciation to the Minister for what the Board of Trade did for a constituent of mine at such short notice, and while thanking the headquarters of United Dominions Trust for the action which it took, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he would not agree that his answer scarcely tallies with the fact that the local office threatened to take repossession of the caravan of a man who is out of work, who is on National Assistance, whose wife is expecting a baby, and who has already paid more

than £400 out of some £500? Does he not think that should be stopped?

Mr. Erroll: I appreciate the kind remarks of the hon. Lady. I have looked into this case very carefully; I think that there has been some misunderstanding, and I have reason to believe that matters will proceed satisfactorily in the future in this case.

Wool Textiles (United Kingdom and Italy)

Dr. Broughton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the relationship in value between wool textiles exported from the United Kingdom to Italy and similar goods imported from that country in 1956.

Mr. Walker-Smith: In the year ended 31st December, 1956, the value of United Kingdom exports of woollen and worsted fabrics to Italy was £1·9 million while imports were valued at £4 million.

Dr. Broughton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the large volume of imports of cheap Italian cloth is causing concern in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and will he and his right hon. Friend investigate thoroughly this problem and take it into account when considering further the question of a European Common Market?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Certainly the position of this industry and others is taken into account, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the totality of our trade we export far more of these commodities than we import.

Distillers (Share Capital Reorganisation)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the offer to take over Booth's Distilleries, Buchanan-Dewar, James Buchanan and Company, John Dewar and Sons, John Haig and Company, John Walker and Sons, and White Horse Distillers; and, in view of the importance of these firms to our export trade, what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. I have seen references in the Press to a reorganisation of share capital, but that does not seem to call for any action on my part.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that his Answer will sorely disappoint consumers who are paying 36s. a bottle for whisky, and who would be glad if he would use this opportunity of referring the whole question to the Monopolies Commission? Does he realise that the firm offering the take-over made a profit of £19 million last year, £10 million of which it distributed in profits. and that Johnny Walker, one firm concerned, recently paid a dividend of 135 per cent.? Does he not think that the whole question of whisky production should be carefully considered by the Government?

Mr. Erroll: The broader issues outlined by the hon. Gentleman in his long supplementary question are quite outside the terms of his original Question. All that is going on is a simplification of the group capital structure of the parent and subsidiary companies.

Monopolies Commission

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the Monopolies Commission Report on the Radio Valve and Electronic Tube Industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has noted the

findings of the Monopolies Commission as a result of its two-year examination of the electronic valve and cathode-ray industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Commission was asked to report on the facts only, and it therefore reached no conclusions on the effects of any of the industry's arrangements on the public interest. There is no provision for action under the Monopolies Act, 1948.

Mr. Lewis: The facts have caused some dismay among people throughout the country. Does not the Minister of State think that the Government should take some action? Can he deny the rumour in the Press that the reason why the Government will not take any action is that some members of the Government and former members of the Government are associated with this industry? Can he deny that?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should not, I think, use Question Time to make this sort of innuendo—

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The Minister of State said that I made an innuendo. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I asked him whether he would deny statements that have been made in the Press that one of the reasons why the Government did not take action is that Ministers and former Ministers are and have been in the industry. Can you say, Mr. Speaker, whether to ask a Minister to deny a statement in the Press is to make an innuendo or not?

Mr. Speaker: That depends upon the interpretation which the House puts upon it, but to ask a Minister to deny a rumour in the Press is out of order at Question Time.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister of State aware that one of the facts shown in the Report is that a 14-inch cathode-ray replacement tube costs £5 6s. 1d. to make and £20 to buy? What is he going to do about that fact?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Report shows that the profit made on the replacements is a good deal larger than the profit made on those supplied to the set makers. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that the average profit referred to fell from 17 per cent. in 1954 to 10 per cent. in 1955.

Spain (Import Licences)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what complaints he has received from British manufacturers over the licensing procedure of Spanish authorities who have not complied with the agreed quota; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We have received some complaints from manufacturers whose agents are unable to obtain licences for the import of their goods into Spain. There have, however, been no specific complaints about failure of the Spanish authorities to comply with their commitments in respect of the quotas for 1956.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister of State not agree that it is about time that we stopped appeasing the Spanish commercial authorities when we are their best customer and our imports from Spain are perpetually increasing while Spain's imports from us do not show a corresponding increase?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is cast in very wide terms indeed. We are following up with the Spanish authorities any suggestion of under-licensing of the quotas that we have.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND

Mr. Atkins: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order that the comprehensive plans for the development of the power resources of this country may in fact be comprehensive, he will introduce legislation with a view to transferring the responsibility for hydro-electric development in Scotland from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Minister of Power.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. I think the arrangements made in April, 1955 were generally welcomed by Scottish opinion and are working well.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it would be better were the whole of this important group of activities under the control of one Minister instead of there being the present arrangement whereby a small part of it is under the control of another who, however excellent, has many other things to occupy his attention?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for argument, but one problem which we have to solve is how to ensure the proper degree of co-ordination while taking full account of Scottish national opinion.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's duties cover a great deal more than the production of electricity, and embrace responsibility for trying to stimulate the economic development of the whole of the Highlands?

The Prime Minister: That is why I think that this experiment, introduced by the Government, is working well and has given general satisfaction.

Mr. Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend think very long and seriously before discarding these arrangements, very carefully worked out and very satisfactory to all concerned at present?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I think this is one of the most successful operations of the Government in meeting Scottish national opinion without disturbing the principle of co-ordinated control.

DEFENCE AND CIVIL EXPENDITURE (ESTIMATES)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about next year's Estimates for defence and civil expenditure.
First, as to defence. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence explained in last weeks debate that a comprehensive review of the defence programme is now in progress. For this reason, it is not yet possible to announce the figures for defence expenditure for the coming year, except to say that the total will be less than the £1,500 million which was the original total for 1956–57.
Votes on Account for the three Services are being formally presented today and will be published tomorrow. The House will be asked to pass these in order to provide the Services with cash for the first four or five months of the financial year. The totals of the full Estimates will be available to the House in a Defence White Paper before the end of March, and the Estimates themselves will be published as soon as possible thereafter. Because of the Defence review, certain Estimates, mainly on the Ministry of Supply Votes, are being marked as provisional in the Civil Vote on Account.
The Estimate for the Civil Vote on Account will also be published tomorrow. As usual, this will include some defence expenditure by the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Defence; excluding this, and excluding self-balancing expenditure, the total estimate of civil expenditure in 1957–58 will be £2,654 million, an increase of £110 million over this year's total Estimates, including Supplementaries, or of £173 million over the original Estimates. The main items in the latter increase are for education (£63 million), National Health Service (£49 million) and Atomic Energy (£31 million).
The social services as a whole show an increase of £146 million over the original Estimates for this year. This is largely due to higher prices, salaries and wages. In part, it is due to the fact that there are more children to be

educated and to the increasing use being made of the National Health Service. Grants to local authorities for other services, as well as for education, show a marked upward tendency.
Although much of this expenditure—particularly that on the programmes of atomic energy and technical education—is of a productive character, yet the very large and continuing increase in our total expenditure, defence and civil, imposes a burden on the economy which the Government cannot ignore. It also represents a threat to the high level of public and private investment on which productivity depends.
First, as regards defence, we are, as I have said, reviewing the whole of the programme. There is clearly a limit to what can be done in the first year, but our object is to curtail expenditure even in this period. In the long run, defence expenditure must be brought substantially below existing levels.
It would not be right to seek to meet our difficulties by making changes in defence policy alone. On the civil side, therefore, we have decided to make changes of policy in three fields.
First, I would refer to the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has already made to the effect that, in the field of local government finance, we propose to introduce, among other measures, a general grant in substitution for a number of percentage grants. This should introduce a stabilising influence in the central Government's contribution to local expenditure.
Secondly, we have reviewed the subsidies involved where the State provides supplies below cost, and have decided to reduce the subsidies in two cases. The price of welfare milk will be increased to 4d. a pint—that is, roughly half-price. This will leave the subsidy at about the amount per pint at which it was first introduced in 1940. With a corresponding increase in the price of National dried milk, the saving in 1957–58 will be £14 million. Next, the charge for school meals will be increased by 2d. to 1s., saving £3½ million.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House should hear the statement.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: If the statement is disagreeable to some hon. Members, that is no reason for not listening to it.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Both these changes will take effect from the beginning of April. The existing arrangements for hardship exemptions will continue. The savings under both these heads have been allowed for in the expenditure figures which I have given earlier.
Finally, we have given anxious consideration to the growing cost of the National Health Service. When the Service was introduced it was expected to cost a total of £175 million a year. By 1949–50, this had risen to £450 million. At that time, Sir Stafford Cripps was so concerned by this that in 1950 he imposed a ceiling of £400 million on Exchequer expenditure below which the cost of improvements and extensions to the Service had to be contained.
In 1957–58, the total cost of the Service will be £690 million. Towards this, as things stand now, £40 million would come from the contribution made from the National Insurance Fund, which, as the House will remember, is 10d. in respect of the adult man and lesser sums in respect of other contributors; £100 million would come from a variety of other receipts (including charges to patients), and the whole of the balance of £550 million—or £49 million above last year—would be provided by general taxation.
The alternatives to this increase in the charge on the Exchequer are to reduce the scope of the Service, to charge more to patients, or to increase the contribution. It is widely believed that the National Health Service is paid for by weekly contributions. This is not so. The contribution has never paid for more than a small proportion of the cost of the Service, and this proportion has steadily declined each year.
When the original National Health Service Bills were before Parliament, it was expected that the Funds' contribution would provide about one-fifth of the gross cost of the Service. Today, it provides only about one-seventeenth. We therefore propose to increase the contribution by 10d. in respect of an adult man, and by smaller sums in respect of adult women and juveniles. The employer will

pay the same proportionate share as at present.
Our purpose is to establish a separate National Health Service contribution towards the cost of the Service. Next year, the contributory element will rise from one-seventeenth to about one-ninth of the gross cost of the Service. Separate legislation for this purpose will be introduced as soon as possible. The change will provide an additional £40 million for the Exchequer in a full year. In the meantime, no credit has been taken in the Estimates for the relief to the Exchequer next year, which, we hope, will be about £20 million.
The total savings to the Exchequer represented by these measures, excluding, of course, anything which can be achieved in the field of defence, will be about £57 million in a full year and about £37 million this year.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. H. Wilson: Once again, as always, the Government have delayed an announcement of this kind until an important by-election was out of the way, deliberately, but in this case ineffectively. Once again, having entirely failed to control inflation, under heavy pressure from their back benchers the Government are taking it out of those who can afford these increases least.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why this is always the case? The Prime Minister, last October, took it out of the sick with the prescription charges, and the right hon. Gentleman is now taking it out of the children.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer these questions? First, with regard to his reference to local authority finance, which he described as a stabilising influence on central Government expenditure, if not on the rates, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will not be any reduction in the estimates of the total amount paid to local authorities, compared with last year? That is an assurance that we should like to have.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what estimate he has made of the effect that these proposals—with welfare milk more than doubling its price per pint—will have on the cost of living of a family of young children, and especially a large family of young children, both as regards welfare milk and school meals?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his calculation, the effects of this new poll tax that he is introducing on the Health Service might have on the pressure for increased wages and on the wage-price spiral, and, ultimately, on our export costs?

Mr. Thorneyerdft: The announcement is timed with the publication of the Estimates.
The general grant will not be in effect next year. What I said was, I believe, true—that a fixed general contribution by the central funds of the Exchequer will have a stabilising influence in that field. I think that that is desirable.
For a family with two children, one under five and one at school, the cost would be 2s., and for a family of three children, with two at school, 2s. 10d. As to the effect on wages, I do not believe that an additional 10d. is an unreasonable contribution. I think that, faced with dealing with a Service which is now costing over £690 million compared with £175 million when it was introduced, it is not unreasonable that we should choose, rather than cut the Service, to go back to what is a quite traditional arrangement —for people to contribute a little when they are well in order that they may be looked after when they are ill.

Mr. Wilson: After the cost of Suez, it does not lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to make those remarks. The right hon. Gentleman has pronounced the final epitaph on "Mac the Knife", with the figures showing how Government expenditure has risen. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, first, how Government expenditure has risen compared with the last year of the Labour Government? Secondly, since he has just said, about the Health Service, that he would rather take it out of the contribution than out of actual expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that during the year in question there will not be any increase in any charges under the Service?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not going to give any assurance about the future, and I do not wish to enter into any of the figures for the last year of the Labour Government.

Mr. Lindgren: As the Government have just handed £100 million to the landlords, will the right hon. Gentleman

tell those of us who have some responsibility in the trade union movement what we are to say to our members whose rents, rates, cost of food and, now, insurance contributions, are to be increased? As far as I am concerned, and the members whom I represent, the right hon. Gentleman has "had it" on wage increases.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The fair thing to say to all men who would wish to see the social services sustained is that those services must be placed upon a reasonably sound financial basis.

Mr. Marquand: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to say that this increase in the price of milk has not completely wiped out the benefits of the increase in family allowances which were announced in the last Budget? Is he aware that only 15 days ago, when we debated the price of milk, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took pride in the increase in the subsidy for welfare milk and went on to say:
There has been no cut here at all. On the contrary. I claim that these very striking figures show how much wiser has been our policy of concentrating on those whose need is greatest.

Commander Sir Peter Agnew: Commander Sir Peter Agnew rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman raising a point of order?

Sir P. Agnew: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is that unless the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) speaks louder it will be quite impossible to hear the trend that the debate is taking.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that some of the difficulty that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) feels in hearing the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is due to the noise in the House. Hon. Members will assist, as I am sure they would wish, if they keep silent. I must point out that all these matters have to be debated some time on the Estimates. I hope that we shall not delay the further proceedings of the House.

Mr. Marquand: I shall use the microphone on the Dispatch Box to make sure that everybody hears the question that I put, Mr. Speaker. It is whether the increase in the price of milk now announced has not entirely wiped out the value of the increases in family allowances announced last year, and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made the claim 15 days ago for the Government on milk subsidies and welfare food that
There has been no cut here at all. On the contrary. I claim that these very striking figures show how much wiser has been our policy of concentrating on those whose need is greatest."?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February. 1957; Vol. 564, c. 195.]
May we now conclude that what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us today is that he is concentrating his attacks on those whose need is greatest?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The answer to the first part of that question must vary from family to family in accordance with the amount of family allowances which they are given. With regard to the second part, the amount per pint is almost identical with that which was introduced in 1946.

Mr. J. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. We have a new Member coming in.

Mr. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is impossible to expect to get lower taxation, higher purchasing power of money and a lower cost of living while we have such a vast burden of State expenditure? Will he, therefore, emphasise that it would be the greatest

act of folly further to add to that by calling for higher increases in wages, and realise that what he has just announced will be welcomed by all far-seeing people with the interests of the country at heart as being wise, courageous and very necessary?

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that these latest increases will fall heaviest on the families with small children, and particularly on the families of the lowest wage earners? Have the Government given any thought to these people? This is another immoral attack on their standard of living, and is completely in line with everything that the Government have done to those who can least afford to bear it.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Government have given very careful thought to all these factors, but the worst damage that could be done to the social services would be to allow the cost of them to rise to unmanageable proportions.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order All these matters can be debated later.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Niall MacDermot, esquire, for Lewisham, North.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee on Housing and Town Development (Scotland) [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57

CLASS II

VOTE 9. COLONIAL SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,937,358, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for sundry Colonial services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; and certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine.

CYPRUS

3.58 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, That Subhead B.1. Cyprus (Grant in Aid), be reduced by £100.
I move this token reduction of this Vote to mark our view that the inflexible, rigid approach of the Government to the problem of Cyprus is betraying the true interests of the British people. I shall bring some evidence during the course of this speech to show that this is so, and I want to use the opportunity to ask supporters of the Government particularly to reconsider their attitude on this matter.
As the life of this Government staggers to its close amid a welter of increased payments and burdens placed upon the people, here is one unnecessary burden which they are being asked to bear. This year, we are being asked to pay £2½ million in respect of the emergency in Cyprus. The Governor of Cyprus, in introducing his budget last week, anticipated that next year the total cost of the emergency, if it continues at the present rate, will be £7 million, of which the taxpayers in this country will be asked to pay one-half. So we can look forward, next year, to another £3½ million being borne

directly by the British in respect of a situation in Cyprus which need not arise, and to which there is a solution on an honourable basis for this country.
It is our profound belief that it is because of misplaced considerations of prestige and dignity that the Government have found themselves unable to move towards a solution in Cyprus that would appeal to all reasonable men. Since we had our last debate on this subject—the last of many—there has been the Government's intervention in Suez. That should surely have affected the thinking, or rethinking, of a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, I trust, members of the Government as well, about this problem.
There have been other matters, too. We have had Draconian Press laws introduced by Sir John Harding. These have been of such a character that the Council of the Commonwealth Press Union, whose president is Lord Astor, has commented that, after studying the regulations dealing with the Press, it is convinced that no internal emergency could justify such arbitrary powers, and deplores this serious invasion of the freedom of the Press in a Commonwealth country. Other hon. Friends of mine will want to comment upon this matter.
I would merely say that among the other issues which have arisen since our last debate has been the grave one of inter-communal rioting between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The Times of Cyprus has been warned in no uncertain terms by the Governor of the island that it will be closed down if, in his view, it incites, encourages, or even condones those who are engaged in this inter-communal rioting.
I have read all the articles on which the Governor relies, and so, I take it, have Lord Astor and the Commonwealth Press Union, and I cannot find any justification at all for the attitude taken by the Governor of Cyprus in the matter. It has reduced the editor of The Times of Cyprus—other hon. Members may also have received a letter from him—to the position that it is the opinion of his legal advisers that the newspaper should no longer hazard any attempt to print and discuss the reasons for communal strife or criticise those who instigate it or condone it. I read The Times of Cyprus


every day, and there is no reference in it to these issues.
The free Press in Cyprus is being suppressed. There is a Press censorship in Cyprus today. Other Emergency Regulations in Cyprus bear so heavily on individual citizens that it is sufficient to be convicted of certain offences against the Emergency Regulations for the death sentence to be made mandatory, no discretion at all being given to the judges in Cyprus.
There was a case briefly reported in The Times the other day. It concerned a shepherd, a young man called Kutchuk. I do not want the name to be confused with that of the leader of the Turkish Cypriots. This young shepherd had, so the evidence went, found a revolver in a field. He was arrested, charged with the crime and sentenced to death by the judge, although evidence was produced that he had previously found bombs in the field where he had been shepherding his flocks and had handed them to the police. The judge said, "You may await a review of your sentence calmly, because the Governor will know of these factors." What a state we have reduced the island to when the death sentence is made mandatory in circumstances like those!
In Cyprus men and women can be, and are, imprisoned without trial. There is suppression of opinion. Indeed, there is no doubt that many of the aspects of the regime which is being conducted in the name of the people of Britain are totalitarian in every respect. They are the sort of elements in the conduct of a State that we would all condemn and have condemned when they have occurred in Nazi Germany or the U.S.S.R. In our name, exactly the same aspects of policy are being followed in Cyprus as have been followed in totalitarian countries.
I preface what I have to say by commenting on that, because I think that the House of Commons should know the problem with which we are dealing. I am not accusing hon. Gentlemen opposite of willingly desiring that these things should happen. I accuse them of something else: that this is the natural consequence of the policy that they are following. It is in an attempt to try to alter the

course of the Government's policy that we have asked for this debate.
It was not our intention that the debate should coincide with the debate in the United Nations. We expected that the debate in the United Nations would have taken place last week, but, alas, we cannot control affairs there. Also, the number of days that are allocated to us are limited. However, I think that the Colonial Secretary could have avoided this debate at this time if he had been ready to come forward with a statement about the situation in Cyprus. We have asked him for such a statement. On one occasion I endeavoured to move the Adjournment of the House to get a statement from him, but without success.
Although I regret that our debate coincides with the debate in the United Nations—it is an accident which is inevitable—I do not think that it need affect us, because from the report of the first day's proceedings in the United Nations Assembly, what is going on there is a backward-looking debate. It is also a debate in which Her Majesty's Government claim that they are dealing with a situation which is the internal responsibility of the Government and the House. As we are, perhaps, here to look forward in this situation, and as we are dealing with a matter which Her Majesty's Government claim is an internal one, I think that we can all assume that our debate will not embarrass anyone who may be taking part in our affairs in the United Nations.
It is nearly a year since Archbishop Makarios was deported from Cyprus. He was deported because his presence on the island, we were told, led to violence and prevented peace and law and order from being established. I am bound to say that if his presence resulted in that, his absence has made no difference at all. Violence, disorder and terrorism have continued and have grown. I think it is true to say that in the eleven months since the Archbishop was deported, about 180 Cypriots, British Service men and British policemen have lost their lives.
We have made no progress at all, as far as I can see, in getting a fresh start in the affairs of this island, except perhaps for one brief glimmer of light which the Colonial Secretary almost immediately extinguished. I refer to the Radcliffe Constitution. I believe that that gave an


opportunity—I hope it still gives an opportunity—to make an advance towards full self-government for the people of Cyprus, but I believe that the Colonial Secretary did a very great deal to extinguish the glimmer of light in December when he referred, in the very same statement in which he hoped for the inauguration of a new era, to the possibility of the partition of the island. That was a very grave blunder indeed.
Both publicly and privately, the Opposition have urged Greeks and Turks to negotiate on the basis of the Radcliffe Constitution. We have expressed our view that this should be the next step forward for the island, but we want one more clear statement, clearer than we have yet had, from the Colonial Secretary if our good offices in the matter are to be of use. The right hon. Gentleman must indicate clearly that the Constitution is not the last word and that amendments can be made to it.
It has been suggested in authoritative quarters that the Radcliffe Constitution is an organic whole and that one cannot interfere with one part of it without wrecking the remainder. I simply do not believe that, any more than that the draft Constitution of Ghana was an organic whole which could not be altered. The Colonial Secretary, who played a very constructive role in the alteration of the Ghana Constitution in its final stages, will, I hope, not be deterred by anything that may have been said about the organic unity of the Radcliffe proposals from altering their conditions if he is convinced that it would be right to do so.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that the main achievement, if I did, in fact, have an achievement in the case of the Gold Coast, was to reassure minority opinion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apply the same consideration to the problem of Cyprus, where the Turks are the minority.

Mr. Callaghan: That, of course, is true. I also remember, in the case of Ghana, that the Colonial Secretary was able to say to them that they were achieving the right of self-determination, and they opted to remain inside the British Commonwealth when they had secured their independence. Is not there a lesson for us in that? Do we really think that we can

go on cajoling and coercing men and women to remain inside the British Commonwealth against their will? We cannot coerce them much longer. We have to win their assent if we want them to remain inside the British Commonwealth, and not force them to do so at the point of a bayonet.
I say to the Colonial Secretary that if he will say now that the Radcliffe proposals are negotiable he will do a great deal to help those of us who would like to see further discussions take place and a settlement reached on the basis of the Radcliffe Report. There are difficulties about it. It is not our job to indicate in detail what those difficulties are. Paul Pavlides, who was a very eminent member of the Executive Council, has indicated some of the difficulties of transplanting our form of constitutional government into an island, where, as he rightly says. the Governor is himself of alien blood to those whom he is governing.
The conventions and traditions which we take for granted in the relationship between the Crown and the House of Commons cannot be replaced with the same confidence in the island of Cyprus, especially as actions which have characterised our administration over the last 12 months have resulted, I regret to say, in British administration being cut off completely from the people of the island.
We are now living in a small enclave, so far as the administration is concerned, in a hostile territory. I think that it justifies a Motion of censure on the policy of Her Majesty's Government, when we are reduced to a situation of that kind.
I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he will tell us what is now the position of E.O.K.A. How far has terrorism been cleared up? We have had a great many statements about this. Usually, they reach a crescendo immediately before a debate, when we are assured that the last remants of terrorism are on the point of being suppressed and that it will only be a very short time before law and order will be restored. We then find that there is a diminuendo after the debate and then, I regret to say, the terrorism, murders, killings, the bullet in the back and the shootings continue.
We have had both such statements during the last 14 days. It was only a week or so ago that I endeavoured to move the


Adjournment of the House on the basis of an announcement by the Governor of Cyprus that a new series of indiscriminate murders was to be launched. Now I read in the Press of the last two or three days inspired statements from Cyprus which tell me that it is now nearly all over. I must say that we become very mistrustful of these reassuring statements.
There is nothing that I should like better than to feel that this is all over and that we are likely to emerge into a new era in Cyprus. But on the basis of our previous experience we are really very suspicious of these inspired statements from the Administration of Cyprus which would lead ordinary men and women, if they had no knowledge of the background of this dispute, to believe that terrorism had been put down in that island.
I should also like to ask the Colonial Secretary whether it is true that order has been restored in that island. Whether it is restored or not, politically we are in a blind alley, and this is the most important and serious matter with which we have to concern ourselves. Because we are cut off from the people of Cyprus and because, since Archbishop Makarios was deported, a leader has not emerged to take over the political leadership of this island, we have put ourselves in a position in which we cannot go forward. We can design the most cleverly constructed constitutions, but if there is no one willing to work them, they are not worth the paper on which they are written.
I ask the Colonial Secretary: where is the political leadership in Cyprus today upon whom he is relying, or which he expects to see emerge, which will be willing to take over the leadership of the island? Does it exist at all? Let me ask him this specific question: with what leaders of Greek Cypriot opinion has he had conversations since the publication of the Radcliffe Report? We know that he has seen Professor Erim, the Turkish Cypriot leader, because he came to London, and saw the right hon. Gentleman and was also good enough to give us the benefit of his views. But even when the Colonial Secretary has won the complete confidence of the Turkish minority, he is no nearer securing any element of political democracy in the island of Cyprus.
I therefore ask him whether there is anyone but Archbishop Makarios to whom he thinks he can turn to implement anything that resembles the Radcliffe Constitution—is there anybody? From what I can make out, reading the Press of that island every day and very thoroughly, all the possible leaders of political opinion in Cyprus have specifically declined to put themselves into a position of leadership because they say that this role must be fulfilled by the Archbishop. I am not referring now merely to those who may be construed as having a natural affinity with the church.

Mr. Bernard Braine: They do not want a bullet in the back.

Mr. Callaghan: Of course they do not want a bullet in the back; I fully appreciate that. What I am saying to the Government is that if they cannot put this down by force of arms and by the strength of 18,000 British soldiers in that island, then they have to find some other way. Heaven knows, we have not been singularly successful in that so far.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) gives me my case. Apparently it is not possible, a year after the deportation of the Archbishop, for anyone to come forward, because law and order have not been restored in the island. How much longer is this going on? Is there any way out of this blind alley, except to go on pouring in more and more troops, while young men of 15 or 16, whose lives are cheap and who have little fear of the consequences, rush about the streets on their bicycles with home-made bombs and throw them at British soldiers and civilian men and women? How are we going to put that down?
I believe that there is only one way. We have to circumvent this by taking a new political initiative, and it is this appeal that I am making to the Government this afternoon. I beg hon. Members opposite to put aside their considerations of pride or prestige and to look at the possibility of getting an honourable settlement of this matter. What prevents the Government from taking this new initiative? So far as I can see there are three reasons.
First, there is the position of the Turkish minority, which can be construed in another way as being the desire of the Government not to offend the Turkish Government. The second reason which prevents us from breaking out of this blind alley into which our policy has led us is the refusal to negotiate with the Archbishop, the refusal to recognise the obvious. The third reason which prevents us from getting out of this maze is what I might call the conflict in the minds of hon. Members opposite between the right of a people to self-determination, on the one hand, and the belief, on the other, that Cyprus is a strategic British interest.
If I can make a division between the two sides of the Committee on this matter, we on these benches tend to labour with more emphasis the right of every people to self-determination. We believe that it is an inherent right of men and women. The Government, while they accept this in principle, nevertheless believe that the vital and inescapable strategic interest of this island in British hands is such that they cannot accept all the principle. That is a fair division between us.
If that is so, I want, especially in the light of what happened in Suez last November, to take a cold, clear, hard look at the value of Cyprus in British hands as a strategic base at the present time. If I can achieve that, I might get hon. Members opposite out of their psychological trauma and get them to look at this problem again through more liberal eyes. It is believed that Cyprus is needed to defend British interests which are outside N.A.T.O. and which are not commonly shared by both Greece and Turkey. That is the argument which has been used by the Colonial Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and nearly every hon. Member opposite who has spoken on this subject.
Let us consider what these commitments are and examine them in the light of the post-Suez situation. There are, first, the Bagdad Pact, which is not a N.A.T.O. interest; secondly, the Anglo-Libyan alliance; thirdly, the alliance with Iraq; fourthly, the alliance with Jordan; fifthly, the Tripartite Declaration to safeguard the frontiers of Israel and Egypt; lastly, the defence of our oil. I have summed up every one of the vital and inescapable British interests which have

been put forward from the benches opposite as representing why we cannot afford to grant the Greek Cypriots the self-determination which they are claiming.
Let us take them in turn. The Bagdad Pact. What is this other than an extension of N.A.T.O., a pact created because the Americans, when it was being formulated, refused to move further into the Eastern Mediterranean? The Bagdad Pact is a child of the same policies as N.A.T.O. and it would come into play in the same circumstances. In other words, it is designed—I am not concerned with whether it will be successful—to safeguard the frontiers of the countries which abut on the U.S.S.R. or its satellites.
Now, with the power vacuum which has been created in the Middle East by the oh-so-foolish adventure in Suez, last November, we are seeing more and more clearly that what is happening in the Middle East is that N.A.T.O. and the Bagdad Pact, in their planning and in their consequences, are bound to become more and more intertwined. I do not now believe, nor do I think that hon. Members opposite believe, that from now on the Bagdad Pact is specifically a British interest from which everybody else is excluded. We can dismiss that as a reason for holding on to Cyprus as a British base.
Now the Anglo-Libyan alliance—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have very clearly followed what the hon. Member has said. Would he say that if Cyprus were under Greek sovereignty either N.A.T.O. or the Bagdad Pact could survive? I ask that to elucidate the thought running through the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Callaghan: Both Greece and Turkey are members of N.A.T.O. and Turkey is also a member of the Bagdad Pact. I do not see why exclusive British sovereignty over that island is necessary to give a secure interlocking of those two pacts. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) has reminded me, Greece has liberally offered bases if Enosis comes to pass, but I am not discussing Enosis this afternoon.
The Anglo-Libyan alliance is another reason. I understand from the Press that Libya has asked us to withdraw part of our forces from that country. In fact, there are negotiations about that going


on at present. We have embarrassed Libya by our attack on Suez. That is another consequence of the Suez operation. British troops are no longer welcome in Libya as they were before. Even assuming that the Anglo-Libyan alliance survives, is it necessary to hold Cyprus to reinforce Libya? Can it not be done equally well from Malta? The Colonial Secretary is always inviting us to have a look at the map. If I had to reinforce Libya, I would sooner do it from Malta than from Cyprus. It is unnecessary to hold Cyprus as a British base for that purpose.
The Anglo-Jordan Treaty was one of the arguments which used to be advanced by the Colonial Secretary and Sir Anthony Eden as a reason for a necessary strategic British hold on Cyprus. I need say no more about the Jordan pact. We are very properly coming out of Jordan. It was a useless base in the political situation which hon. Members opposite have created in the Middle East.
Today, who will rely on the Tripartite Declaration for safeguarding the frontiers of Israel and Egypt? Is that a reason, a necessity, for condemning 18,000 British troops to holding down the people of Cyprus? I am staggered at the inflexibility, immobility and lack of fresh thinking which characterise the Government on this matter. They are not—and I mean this very sincerely—defending the proper interests of the British people today by their attitude to Cyprus, this muddled mixture of pride and prestige. Yesterday, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs tried to rattle the dead bones of the Tripartite Declaration, but he will not breathe life into that He has to start again.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): I was not try to rattle bones. I was asked whether it was in force and said that it was.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not ask you to comment, Sir Charles, but what can you make of a Government like that? Right up to the time of the armed conflict with Egypt we were told that one of the pillars of our foreign policy in the Middle East today was the Tripartite Declaration. When we failed to invite the co-operation of the United States, at a time when it was suspected—I put it no higher—that

there was a possibility of a conflict between Israel and Egypt, we, of our own volition, slew the Tripartite Declaration; and afterwards, when we put this to them, they said, "No, it was never really in force, because Egypt did not accept it, so we never really were basing ourselves on it at all." Now, this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes, it is in force again." But not for Egypt, is that the point?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Mr. Ormsby-Gore indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to ask the Minister of State this question: for which countries is the Tripartite Declaration in force at present? Do the United States accept that it is in force?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: What I have already said is that the United States accept that it is not in force for Egypt.

Mr. Callaghan: At least we know what it is not in force for; it is not in force for Egypt. Cannot the Government get out of the habit of talking all the time in double negatives on this question? Cannot we get a single positive assertion about it? Is it in force today for Jordan? Is it in force for the Lebanon? Is it in force for Syria?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Mr. Ormsby-Gore indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: Apparently, it is. Do the United States accept that?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is up to the United States Government to say that. So far as I know, they certainly accept it.

Mr. Callaghan: Leaving Israel out of this for a moment, I am bound to say that were I a resident of one of those three countries, and were I asked to rely upon a Tripartite Declaration of which, as I am told by the Minister of State, the most powerful partner has still to say whether it is in force, I should place very little value on it at all.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I did not say that. I said that it is for the United States Government to speak for themselves, as I cannot speak for them. But our understanding is that the United States Government regard the Tripartite Declaration as being in force.

Mr. Callaghan: Well, in the interests of peace in the Middle East. in the


interests of safeguarding the frontiers of these countries, I say that it is vital that the Government should make a plain and clear declaration of policy on this matter; not that the Minister should merely interject in the middle of the speech of another hon. Gentleman. Let us know where we stand. I ask the Minister of State and the Colonial Secretary; is Cyprus necessary as an essential British base for this purpose? That is the question to which I wish right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to address their minds. We know that it is not.
What about oil? We were told at one stage after another by Sir Anthony Eden that the possession of Cyprus as a strategic British base was vital to the protection of our oil. I make this comment. At present oil is not flowing from Iraq through Syria to the Mediterranean. We understand that 11 million tons might be flowing from Iraq through to the Mediterranean, via Syria, even without repairing the pumping stations in that country—at a reduced rate of flow. What is preventing it? Political considerations in Syria? Does the fact that 18,000 troops are chasing terrorists in Cyprus enable us to get the oil flowing? The plain truth is that Cyprus is useless as a means of getting oil from the Middle East today.
I will give the Government only one consideration to which they might cling in arguing that Cyprus is still essential as a strategic base; that is in connection with our treaty with Iraq. Even so, I hope that they will not try to reinforce Iraq from Cyprus. I should prefer that they examine the suggestion, made some time ago by the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), that if there is to be any reinforcement of Iraq, if we are to call in our relationship with that country. it should be done via the Persian Gulf. That would be a much more preferable way of doing it than tying us down in Cyprus.
I am spending some time on this strategic aspect of the question. I think it vital to get the Government supporters out of their delusion that this is a strategic necessity to us. Last week the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said:
What is the good of Cyprus as a military base if we cannot operate from it? On the occasion of the Suez operation, we could not use it as a military base because it had no

deep-water port. We could not use it as an air base, because we had not the transport aircraft to carry weapons heavy enough to cope with tanks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1343.]
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said:
… as far as Cyprus is concerned either we have to face the fact that it is quite useless as a base, because it does not have a deep-water port, or we must spend an enormous amount of money, and very quickly, in making it into a deep-water port so that it may be used as a base."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1356.]

Brigadier Sir John Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has quoted me quite correctly, but I did say, a little later in the debate, that the second fault which made it no use as an operation base at the time of Suez—that we had no aircraft to carry an anti-tank gun—was a matter which the Minister of Defence should and could rectify. The hon. Gentleman should bear that point in mind, because without it the sentence he quoted is put out of context.

Mr. Callaghan: I am bringing the hon. and gallant Member with me. Is that a necessarily exclusive British matter? Are not the circumstances envisaged by the hon. and gallant Member, in which the air base in Cyprus would be brought into use, those covered by 1192 in the N.A.T.O. Pact? The hon. and gallant Member knows they are, and, of course, they are. That is the whole burden of my case. If Cyprus still has a military purpose for us, it is in respect of the N.A.T.O. and Bagdad Pacts, and not in respect of any exclusive British military interest.
In any case, it was never intended as a base. It has been misused as a base. When he made his declaration about the withdrawal from Egypt, Sir Anthony Eden said that he did not intend that Cyprus should become a base. It was to be a headquarters. He said that the base was to be in Egypt and our troops were to be redeployed in Jordan and Libya. A strategic reserve was to be brought home, and Cyprus was to be regarded as a headquarters. Sir Anthony knew, and the military advisers of the Government knew at that time, that it could never become a base.
When we had the folly of Suez, a seaborne operation came from Malta, and we had something from Cyprus endeavouring to support that. What a


muddled way to conduct an operation. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will put aside their prejudices and their preoccupation with prestige, and consider the matter afresh, they will come to the conclusion that what the Colonial Secretary called this vital and inescapable strategic purpose of Cyprus is a myth which is costing us a great many men, which is costing the Cypriots their liberty and which is costing us our international good name.
Now as to the Turks. In company with some of my hon. Friends, I met Professor Erim, and we fully understood their desire to safeguard the interests of the Turkish minority. In the situation which has arisen, I understand the very real fears of the Turks. But I say publicly what I have said privately. If the Radcliffe solution were to be set in motion, I believe that it would provide built-in guarantees and that the Turkish minority need have no fear. I beg the Colonial Secretary, in whatever he has to say today, not to lead us further down this path of partition. I can think of nothing worse for that island. It is impossible to devise a scheme of partition between Greeks and Turks in the island which would bear any sense at all.
The right hon. Gentleman must use his endeavours—he will be failing in his duty if he does not—to persuade these people to live together. That is where their future lies, not in having a partitioned island, with the armed forces of a foreign nation dividing it up between them, and with the frontier incidents, bloodshed and strife which would follow. That is no part of statesmanship and I beg the Colonial Secretary to put it behind him.
We ought not to say to the Turks that we are ready at this stage to concede partition, and that the time to determine what issues are to be decided by the people of the island will come when self-determination becomes a practical issue. We believe that, because of the policy which has been followed and of the practical results which have emerged from it, it is impossible for self-determination to take place now. There must be a period of constitutional government between the present system and self-determination. I believe that that view is widely accepted by Cypriots in many parts.
What is needed is for the Colonial Secretary to affirm that there is a complete intention by the Government to enable Cypriots to determine their own future and, in the very interesting suggestion that Mr. Averoff, the Foreign Secretary of Greece, put forward a couple of months ago, to try to embody, if we can, in the Constitution itself the mechanism for determining at what time the right of self-determination should be invoked. Let there not be decided now what questions should be put to the inhabitants of the island to answer, neither in form nor in principle. If a constitution of this sort were put in force a great many changes of opinion could take place within a comparatively short period of time.
I do not despair of arriving at a solution of the problem. We are left with one stumbling block, the person of the Archbishop. That is the one final stumbling block with which the Government find themselves unable to cope. It is a year since the Archbishop was deported, no one has come forward to take his place, and no one seems likely to do so. So far as I know, the Government here have no alternative leader in mind. What are they going to do to break this political deadlock? They must answer that question. It is their duty to the people of this country to answer it.
Two simple acts could transform the whole situation in Cyprus. One is a positive declaration by Her Majesty's Government of their belief in the right of self-determination. The other is for the Government to bring Archbishop Makarios into a position where he is enabled to discuss with them the future constitution of the island, simultaneously inviting him to ask and, indeed, getting his assurance that he will ask—I do not know whether he is in a position to command; the Government say that he is—that violence on the island should cease in order to enable negotiations to go on in a calm and judicial atmosphere.
Is it impossible for the wit of the Colonial Secretary to do these two things at once if he wants a solution? Goodness knows, he is an agile manipulator. I do not believe that it is impossible for him to do it. Unless he has any other solution to offer us, it is his duty to try to achieve both those steps, which could transform the situation and could alter


the whole atmosphere in the island overnight. I hope that we shall get a clear statement from the Government. I know what we may get: a resumé, a history of the violence in the island, an indictment of the Archbishop and a tie-up between him and violence. We all know it. We have all accepted it and we all understand it. We all have to live with it, and so have many of our constituents—

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I was a little alarmed at the implications which might be drawn from my hon. Friend's words. He and I see eye to eye on this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It might be thought from all he said that he was swallowing lock, stock and barrel the kind of propaganda put out by the Government.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) accepts or what he does not accept. I am trying to put my view as I see it. Although we have had no opportunity of hearing the answer of the Archbishop to the charge that he was implicated in violence, there is very clear evidence that he was. Do not let us try to dodge the realities of the situation. The whole of our approach to the problem is to get the Committee to face up to the realities.
It may be more difficult for the Colonial Secretary to accept these suggestions than anybody else, but, even assuming that there is an implication, is the right hon. Gentleman going finally and for ever to refuse to talk to the Archbishop about the future of the island when there is no other way that he has suggested of emerging from the deadlock? I want to face very clearly the implications of what my hon. Friend has said. If we were sitting in the Government benches we would do what we think the right hon. Gentleman ought to do, namely, whatever the implications of the Archbishop or the Church, to undertake negotiations with him in order to achieve an honourable settlement. That is the step that the Colonial Secretary ought to take, and which would be in the best interests of the people of this island.
I believe we would then get a settlement of the whole problem. It would enable the people of Cyprus to live in peace and enable us to bring all our troops home from that island, and it

would put an end to the long and troublesome problem which must anguish every one of us who has time to pause and consider it.

4.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): This debate comes at a time which may well prove to be a turning point in the troubled affairs of the island of Cyprus. All of us must earnestly hope that this will be so and that events may now take a course which will restore peace to the people of Cyprus and friendly relations between our two allies, Greece and Turkey. Not least, we must all hope that the time may be coming when British Service men and civilians in Cyprus will no longer live in danger of their lives and when families at home will no longer be fearful of what news the postman may bring them.
There are two reasons why I start on this note of hopefulness. One is that in recent weeks the E.O.K.A. terrorists have suffered some very heavy blows. As hon. Members may have seen, the Observer correspondent reported last Sunday:
The final destruction of E.O.K.A. terrorism is simply a question of time.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall that during recent events the Observer has not been unduly optimistic about the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
The second reason why we can look forward with some hope is that this week the United Nations is debating the affairs of Cyprus. The result of that debate will soon be known. I will return to these points a little later.
If the Committee will permit me, I would like to set out, as lucidly as I can, what seems to me to be the real crux of the Cyprus problem. Quite briefly, it is this. On the one hand, the Ethnarchy, the terrorists and the Greek Government are at present taking the line—and have done all they possibly can to persuade the Greek Cypriots to follow suit—that they can accept nothing short of union of Cyprus with Greece. On the other hand, the Turks and the Turkish Cypriots would be prepared to go to any lengths to prevent such a union from taking place. The problem that we have to solve is just this—how to find a way of reconciling these at present mutually inconsistent attitudes and to reach a


peaceful accommodation between them. That is what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do.
It is sometimes suggested—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), to whose very fair speech the Committee has just listened with great interest, made the suggestion himself—that the one thing standing in the way of a solution to the Cyprus problem is the existence of a British base on that island. The argument runs that if it were not for the existence of this base, or if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make some other arrangements about the base, we could simply hand over Cyprus to Greece, give the union our blessing and, hey presto, the Cyprus problem would be solved.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that I did not give that impression at all. I certainly never suggested that we should hand over the island to Greece—I did suggest that we should agree to the right of selfdetermination—nor did I say that the possession of the British base was the only obstacle. I said that in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite it seemed to be the chief obstacle. I mentioned what I thought were the other obstacles.

Mr. Profumo: At any rate, the hon. Gentleman admits that he did suggest that in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends this was one of the chief obstacles.

Mr. Callaghan: In their speeches.

Mr. Profumo: Whether or not he meant in the speeches of my hon. Friends, that was his suggestion. He says that he did not suggest that we should hand Cyprus over to Greece. The fact is that we cannot. And the difficulty is that things being as they are at the present time, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots will accept nothing short of union. How nice it would be if the matter were quite straightforward and if we could take the hon. Gentleman's line. Unfortunately this simply is not the case, and we have to face facts as they are.
We have to be responsible about all this, and the facts are that, in present circumstances, the union of Cyprus with Greece would have only one result; it would risk turning over the whole island of Cyprus to communal violence and

bloodshed on a large scale and setting our two allies, Greece and Turkey, at one another's throats. This is a very harsh thing to say, but it is the stark truth. Such an outcome would be not only abhorrent to this Committee, but also disastrous to N.A.T.O. and for the power of the Western world to defend itself in the Middle East. The Committee will agree that we know only too well that the threat of Russian ambition in the Middle East has not been growing smaller in recent months.
The crux of the Cyprus problem is to reach an agreement, or at least a modus vivendi, between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the island, and the Greek and Turkish Governments in the international sphere. That is the basic fact of the situation, and we shall achieve a peaceful settlement in Cyprus only if we do not forget that fact. It is to this end that Her Majesty's Government policy has been and will continue to be directed.
The first of our tasks, as we have always said, has been to stamp out terrorism in Cyprus. In the past two or three months the security forces there have struck some very hard blows against E.O.K.A., from which it is unlikely that it will recover. Hon. Members will remember that in December the Governor was able to announce the arrest of 44 terrorists in the Limassol area, and of eight in the Larnaca district. Thirty of those arrested in Limassol were either members or close associates of murder gangs, and this amounted to almost a complete sweep of murder gangs in that area. The others were concerned in an arms smuggling ring.
Last month, even more spectacular success was achieved by police and troops operating in the Troodos and Delphi forest areas against mountain gangs. Twenty-seven hard-core terrorists were captured in January, including three of the five or six top men of E.O.K.A. Large quantities of weapons, ammunition and equipment were also captured, including a number of light and submachine guns. These successes represented a very severe blow to E.O.K.A. It is considered that nearly half of the known E.O.K.A. hard-core leaders were captured or killed during that month.
More encouraging even than these successes themselves is the fact that the operations were based on intelligence, and


that they have yielded still further intelligence which will be useful in the future. Captures of terrorists, arms, ammunition and equipment, though they have not been so spectacular as they were in January, have steadily continued during the present month. Hon. Members, I have no doubt, will have seen in this morning's newspapers that in the last two days one important terrorist has been killed and another captured.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman say from which country those arms came?

Mr. Profumo: I would not like to hazard a guess, but I am sure that they did not come from this country.
While there is great encouragement to be drawn from the successes in the last month, I must emphasise—and I think that this is a point which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East himself made—that the potential of E.O.K.A. for violence still remains, and that it is too soon to think of any relaxation in the struggle against these brutal and often indiscriminate killers. Equally, it is futile to talk of giving the Cypriots self-government unless we mean also that we are first to give them internal security.
These remarks on the internal security situation in Cyprus at present would be incomplete without a reference to the recent communal disorders. Until the middle of last month there had been happily no recurrence of the rioting and counter-rioting of Greek and Turkish Cypriots which took place between February and April of last year. On 19th January, however, after a bomb attack by a Greek Cypriot on Turkish Cypriot police constables, there was rioting by small bands of Turkish and Greek Cypriot youths, in which damage was done to property, members of both communities injured, and one Greek Cypriot killed.
The security forces have acted promptly and effectively to bring these disorders under control, and the Governor made a personal appeal for restraint and order by radio on 3rd February, in which fie appealed to all responsible Cypriots, irrespective of race or religion, to keep calm in the face of provocation, and stated that the security forces would carry out their duty of maintaining law and order without fear or favour. I am

happy to say that there has been no recurrence of these disorders in recent weeks.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to the Emergency Regulations—

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this very grave point—and I am sure that it will be agreed that it is a very grave point—could he say just a word about the extremely serious allegations that have been made to the effect that, in some way or other, these acts by Turkish mobs were directly or indirectly encouraged by or welcome to the British authorities on the island? It is because these claims have been very widely made that I think that perhaps he might take an opportunity of answering them.

Mr. Profumo: My only comment is that that is entirely and absolutely untrue. I take this opportunity of saying that, but my right hon. Friend will be prepared to deal with it in greater detail when he winds up.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Would not the hon. Gentleman recognise the contribution that was made by Greek and Turkish leaders in the island, who also appealed to their communities for self-restraint? Would he not agree that this was a very courageous appeal for those leaders to make?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has intervened. I am only too glad to associate myself with her remarks about the contribution which that appeal has made.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to the Emergency Regulations. As he will probably remember, these were discussed in an Adjournment debate on 21st December last. Since then the Regulations relating to the control of publications have already been amended so as to put it beyond any doubt that they are not intended to apply to fair and honest comment. The present position in relation to these Regulations is that suggestions for certain Amendments have been received from the Government of Cyprus. As the Committee will realise, these involve somewhat intricate legal points, which are now being considered by my Department's legal advisers. I know


that the Press Regulation has been criticised because it bars access to the courts. This is not a thing which we desire, and we are quite prepared, in principle, to amend it if it is legally practicable. I am glad to tell the Committee that Sir John Harding shares this view.
Allegations have been made of brutality by police and interrogators against Cypriots in detention. I must say straight away, that every alleged case is carefully examined and proceedings will be taken against anyone who is found at any time to have exceeded his duty. But these allegations have been very widely exaggerated indeed. I repeat that in all cases the Governor is taking the most strenuous and urgent action to invesigate any point of this sort which is brought up.

Mr. George Thomas: Would the Minister be kind enough to say in how many cases cruelty has been proved?

Mr. Profumo: So far as I am able to say at this stage, I know of no case so far where cruelty has been proved. Recently, when the writer of an article which appeared today in the Manchester Guardian was in Cyprus, he himself did have talks with the Governor, and in every case which they discussed it was possible to show that the allegation was unfounded or that the complaint was still under investigation.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Surely the Minister must have heard of the case publicised only yesterday of the young man on trial for murder. The judge dismissed the charge because he believed that the man had been so beaten up in order to make him sign the declaration that, as the judge said, the only evidence against him, which was his own testimony against himself, could not possibly be accepted. Surely, that is a case which has been proved?

Mr. Profumo: I think it would be wise if my right hon. Friend dealt with any specific cases which hon. Members may bring forward during the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), by his intervention, has really made a point which demonstrates that the rule of law does obtain. [Laughter.] I do not think it is wise for the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to laugh at this. I do not

know what the hon. Gentleman wishes to suggest; he is only at this moment coming into the Committee.
Even in the present time of emergency in Cyprus the onus of proof is on the prosecution, and, in a case like this, particularly a case demanding the death penalty, it surely is right, as all hon. Members will agree, that if the prosecution is not able to make out its case then, according to the rules of justice, the case should not stand. But, as I say, my right hon. Friend will certainly deal with any specific points when he comes to wind up.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Although technically I was not in the Chamber, I have listened to the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Surely, he must be driven back to a bad case when he categorically states at the Box that there has been no proven charge of cruelty and then, when one is brought out from this side, he avoids the issue by saying that his right hon. Friend will deal with that specifically. I know he has a written brief in front of him, but he really must tear himself away from it and address himself to the subject, namely, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

Mr. Profnmo: I have not got a written brief in front of me to the extent that I have not departed from it when there have been interruptions. Indeed, I waited until the hon. Member for Leeds. West came into the Chamber so that he might have an opportunity, if he wished to do so, of continuing his conversation. I have no doubt that if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Williams, he will elaborate his case. I have already said that my right hon. Friend will be glad to deal with it in more detail when he winds up.
However, I do not wish to let this matter pass without saying that, as I have said, I know of no case yet which has been substantiated, and I do not admit that this case has been. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All I am saying is that the onus is upon the prosecution and, as it was not possible to establish its case, in a case of murder it is perfectly right that the law should take the course it did.

Sir Frank Soskice: Will the Minister at any rate deal with the first of


the two cases mentioned in the article in the Manchester Guardian today? Has he in mind, or, if his right hon. Friend is going to deal with this later, will he have in mind, that there are two cases mentioned? The second of them was dealt with before the courts, but the first of them apparently was not dealt with before the courts. I have no knowledge whatsoever as to whether the assertions in the article are well-founded or not, but will both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have in mind that, if they are able to give a full and adequate explanation of what did take place in those cases, they will reassure very large numbers of people in this country and outside who must be profoundly uneasy at reading what is stated in that article?

Mr. Profumo: I will gladly answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman. So far as I am aware, in the first of the cases mentioned in the article to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, the information about the pregnant lady was based on false assertions. That is my information, and I gladly give it now, because I and my right hon. Friend fully recognise that assertions of this kind do cause widespread alarm and despondency. However, I say again that my right hon. Friend will deal in detail, if he thinks fit, with this and other accusations of that kind.
If I may come back to the point again, I do not wish to let it pass without making clear, as, indeed, did the writer of the article, that many of these cases are grossly exaggerated, probably for reasons to do with the sides taken in Cyprus. Therefore, we simply must not believe at first sight all we see. We must all remember that the Governor has got an immensely difficult job to deal with out there and is trying to deal with it in an emergency in a way which he thinks is fair to all.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a very important matter, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise now what damage was done to the good name of British justice because the Field Marshal took the point he is making and said that he was not ready to investigate these cases because, in his view, many of them were mischievous; and it was not until there was much private and public pressure, by the Bar

Council in Cyprus and by members of the House of Commons, that eventually and reluctantly some investigation was made?

Mr. Profurno: I think that that is more unjust—

Mr. Callaghan: It is not unjust; it is the truth.

Mr. Profumo: I think the hon. Gentleman would wish to wait until I have finished my sentence. Otherwise I might repeat his charge and say, really what manner of Opposition is this?

Mr. Callaghan: We know our facts, which is more than the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Profumo: I rather doubt whether the hon. Gentleman can argue any of the facts I have so far put forward.

Mrs. Jeger: Mrs. Jeger rose—

Mr. Profumo: I must answer one hon. Member at a time. I wanted just to say that I am sure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is not on purpose being unjust to the Field Marshal; but it is not correct to say that he has not been following a continuous process of examination of all these cases.
I have had the advantage, as the hon. Member, I believe, has not, of serving in the war on the staff of Field Marshal Sir John Harding, and I think this would be an appropriate moment for me, on behalf of the Committee, to pay a tribute to the way in which Sir John Harding is dealing with an immensely difficult and extraordinarily complex problem in Cyprus with boldness and statesmanship. It would, I believe, be wrong for me to allow this occasion to pass without making that tribute.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for giving way again. I do not want to do the Field Marshal an injustice at all, but we are not writing his obituary notice at this time. The facts are simply these, that the Field Marshal, to my certain knowledge, to the knowledge of many members of the Bar Council in Cyprus and to the knowledge of English lawyers in this country, refused to investigate these cases because, he said, many of them were mischievous. That was the damage which was done. It was not until pressure was brought to bear


that at about the beginning of January he agreed to do something. Does the Under-Secretary dispute any of that?

Mr. Profumo: I do dispute that. That is why I say that I think that, unwittingly, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was being more unjust than he intended to be. Indeed, I am well aware that we are not writing the obituary notice of Sir John Harding, but I think that if we were we would get somewhere nearer to the truth of these events than some people in this country, in the Press and elsewhere, might make it out to be. I am glad that in a debate of this sort the Committee does feel that a tribute should be paid to Sir John Harding at this time.
Does the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Leger) wish to intervene?

Mrs. Jeger: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the Committee, but is it not wrong to say that there have been no proven cases at all of cruelty? There was during last year, was there not, the case of two officers who were court-martialled, found guilty, and dismissed the Service on these very charges?

Mr. Profumo: Once again, I have to thank the hon. Lady, the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South for intervening, and that is why I was ready to give way. I said in my answer earlier that was the case so far as I was aware. As a result of the hon. Lady's intervention, I can now correct that; she is, of course, absolutely right in saying that there were those cases, and I ask the Committee to forgive me. I did not mean purposely to overlook that. I really had in mind the more recently publicised cases. I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, because I certainly did not wish to mislead the Committee.
Perhaps I might pass to another extremely important figure in the Cyprus controversy, who was mentioned, naturally, by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I refer to Archbishop Makarios. The hon. Member earnestly entreated Her Majesty's Government to bring the Archbishop back into play again. Hon. Members opposite have often said that the Archbishop is the only

key to the situation and that we shall get nowhere without him, because he is the only person who speaks for the Cypriot community.
But have hon. Members opposite considered why no one else will speak? It is because they have been terrorised. Have hon. Members opposite considered where we should be likely to get with Archbishop Makarios in present circumstances? He is the man who has made it his aim to unite Cyprus with Greece. He is the man who supported Grivas and gave instructions—[Interruption.] I did not say that there was any crime. When I want to make a charge about a crime, I will preface my remarks by saying so. Archbishop Makarios is the man who supported Grivas and gave instructions to the terrorist gangs. He is the man who has had countless opportunities to condemn violence. If it is true that he is the leader of all Greek Cypriots, his condemnation of violence would surely have led to its end, but he has steadfastly declined to take such action against terrorism.
It may well be true that the Archbishop has a part to play. I know that if he were to renounce and condemn terrorism, peace could be more quickly restored to Cyprus, and so does the Archbishop know it. Until he has done so, however, until the Greek Cypriots are convinced that Archbishop Makarios will not continue to support violence and terrorism as a means towards achieving the union of Cyprus with Greece or until terrorism is finally stamped out, I believe that a resumption of any kind of negotiations with Archbishop Makarios could not help towards a peaceful settlement in Cyprus.
I consider, in fact, that a resumption of negotiations with Archbishop Makarios would only encourage the terrorists and the Greek Government in their intransigence and thereby put off the day when we could hope for a restoration of peace. I believe with all honesty and sincerity that the terrorists and the Greek Government find encouragement and support for their present policies every time that a cry goes up in this country for the reopening of negotiations with Archbishop Makarios and for his return to Cyprus.

Mr. James Griffiths: If the Government have made up their mind


not to negotiate with Makarios, what was the purpose of sending representatives of the British Government or of the Cyprus Government to see him in the Seychelles, apparently to put to him the Radcliffe Constitution and, I assume, to ascertain whether he would be prepared to discuss a settlement on the basis of that constitution, which, I thought, was a wise thing to do? We have heard nothing more about it except that representatives were sent. It was, however, a decision of the British Government.
It has, therefore, been concluded, not only on this side of the Committee, but in the country, I think, that that was a hopeful sign that the Government were seeking to ascertain whether Makarios would be prepared, and, if so, under what conditions, to discuss a settlement on the basis of the Radcliffe proposals. Is that the view of the Government? If not, what was the purpose of sending representatives to see the Archbishop?

Mr. Profmno: I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman in a jiff, if I may. I apologise that I am taking so long, but I have given way to a number of hon. and right hon. Members.
Our first line of approach, then, is the elimination of terrorism, and the second is constitutional advance; for although we cannot in present circumstances contemplate the application of self-determination, Her Majesty's Government are determined to go ahead with internal constitutional development in Cyprus in order to give Cypriots, Greek and Turkish alike, a greater opportunity of running their own internal affairs.
As all hon. Members will know, Lord Radcliffe submitted his Report to my right hon. Friend some eleven weeks ago. The Radcliffe constitutional proposals were published widely among all sections of people in Cyprus, who were, as hon. Members know, eagerly awaiting them. The proposals were well received by the Turkish Government, who are studying them closely, but they produced an immediate negative reaction from the Greek Government. I think it is fair to say that the fact that the Greek Government rushed in like that, before the people of Cyprus, who were those principally concerned, had had a chance to see the proposals and form their views on them, was thoroughly resented by the Cypriots.
The Radcliffe Report was, as the House knows, shown to Archbishop Makarios in the Seychelles by Lord Radcliffe's secretary and an official of the Cyprus Government. They explained that the sole purpose of their mission was to give the Archbishop any elucidation which he might require of Her Majesty's Government's constitutional proposals and to transmit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any observations that the Archbishop might wish to make. The representatives informed him that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to provide the necessary facilities should he wish to see a representative group of Cypriots or, indeed, someone from Greece.
The officials' stay in the Seychelles was prolonged beyond the original intention because informal conversation with the Archbishop appeared to give ground for hoping that he might be reconsidering his attitude towards making a statement opposing violence. That hope, however, proved to be unfounded. Archbishop Makarios said that he understood Lord Radcliffe's Report but was not under present conditions disposed to discuss any question relative to the future of Cyprus.
I believe that when terrorism has been stamped out and is no longer encouraged by the Ethnarchy or by the Greek Government, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots will both be willing and eager to co-operate in running the internal affairs of the island on the lines, although not necessarily exactly the precise lines, proposed by Lord Radcliffe.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Kenneth Robinson(St. Pancras, North) rose—

Mr. Profumo: I had better finish my speech. The hon. Member will, no doubt, be allowed to make his speech later.
The third way in which we have to approach the Cyprus problem is in its international aspect. As the House knows, the United Nations is debating the Cyprus situation this week. Our case, which has been fully supported by evidence, is that the Greek Government has carried out an active campaign aimed at the annexation of Cyprus. There has been a vicious propaganda offensive by Athens radio which has incited the people of Cyprus to violence. The Greek Government has supplied arms, ammunition and money to the E.O.K.A. terrorists.
Greek army officers have trained a number of Cypriot terrorists in the techniques of terrorism and a number of Greek nationals have gone to Cyprus to take part in the E.O.K.A. movement.
I will not go into details now—our case has been put yesterday at the United Nations by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs—but it is our hope that this complaint by Her Majesty's Government will receive extensive support at the United Nations and that the debate will bring home to the Greek Government that its support for terrorism in Cyprus cannot succeed and that it can bring nothing but harm to any and all parties concerned.
Considering the long traditional friendship between our two peoples, it must be a matter of the greatest regret to all of us that relations between ourselves and the Greek Government have come to this pass. I can only say how much we all hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that the friendship between our two nations will be speedily restored.
I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer, because I know that there are many other hon. Members who wish to make speeches, but I would say this. I believe that if we can convince the Ethnarchy, the E.O.K.A. terrorists and the Greek Government that terrorism cannot succeed, we shall be well on the way to a peaceful introduction of internal self-government in Cyprus. To put it another way, if the terrorists—E.O.K.A.—denounce terrorism, and certainly if the Archbishop himself were to support such an announcement and to make it perfectly plain to the world, I believe that a new situation would be created which would get us much closer to the introduction of internal self-government in the island.
As Her Majesty's Government have said, we do not rule out self-determination for the peoples of Cyprus when the time is propitious. That time, however, it not yet here, and the first step towards self-determination must be the cooperation by Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the managing of their own internal affairs. Hon. Members opposite have thrown up their hands in horror at the idea of self-determination coupled with partition. Of course, partition would not be the most satisfactory outcome of the

present trouble for the inhabitants of Cyprus. My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear. On 19th December, he said in the House:
… none of us would regard partition … as the best solution of the many problems there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December. 1956, Vol. 562, c. 1277.]
Nevertheless, the fact remains that partition must be a possibility if Turkish Cypriots are to be allowed to exercise the right of self-determination as well as Greek Cypriots and if they choose to become a part of Turkey.
Let us, however, make it quite clear that it lies in the power of Greeks and Greek Cypriots themselves to avoid the unsatisfactory alternative of partition. Greek and Turkish Cypriots used to live together in peace. If Greek Cypriots can satisfy their Turkish fellow-countrymen that there is nothing to fear from the application of self-determination there is no reason why self-determination should necessarily lead to partition of the island.
While my right hon. Friend and I welcome this debate as an opportunity for the expression of constructive thought on the future of Cyprus, and although we appreciate that an Amendment to reduce the amount of the Vote is only a customary means of instigating such a debate, I hope that the result of our deliberations today will show that there is much common ground between us in all parts of the Committee. The one thing which would be harmful to our cause, to the country, indeed, to the future of Cyprus itself, would be for differences of opinion to be magnified so as to portray to the world at large a deep division of purpose or a deep cleavage of policy. I do not believe it exists.
My right hon. Friend has purposely elected to wind up in order that he may be in a position frankly and fully to answer proposals and misgivings alike and thereby to narrow the gap that may divide us on a problem so acute as to deserve a truly national policy.

Mr. Donald Wade: The hon. Gentleman referred very briefly to the suppression of the freedom of the Press, which is causing grave concern and which is doing very real harm to Britain's reputation. Is it the intention of his right hon. Friend to deal with that matter in more detail when he winds up?

Mr. Profumo: Yes. If it is the wish of the Committee, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to deal with that in more detail.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: The Under-Secretary of State seemed to be surprised that in Cyprus the Greek Government and the Greek Cypriots are carrying on violent propaganda for the union of the island with Greece and that assistance is going from Greece to the Greek Cypriots for this purpose. How does he imagine that the Kingdom of Greece came into existence or that the Greeks came into possession of the island of Crete unless in the past the Greeks had carried on violent nationalist propaganda of that kind and sent arms and other assistance to rebels to try to bring about the unity of all the Greek-speaking areas into one Greek State?
I am not condoning the violence which has taken place in Cyprus, but I do say that we must regard that kind of activity as inevitable when there is strong nationalist feeling and when there is no effort made by the rulers of the territory in any way to meet the feeling of nationalism. Nationalism is very much the strongest of political feelings in the world at present. It is the basis of the Hungarian resistance to Russian control, and it is the basis of Greek Cypriot resistance to our rule. The Government should recognise the force of that nationalism and try to come to terms with it in any policy which they draw up.
Partition seems to me to be one of the most important issues at present in Cyprus. It is widely believed, rightly or wrongly, that the antagonistic feeling between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus has been partially at any rate stirred up in the past by the British Government. The old idea of divide and rule is well known when there is an imperial and colonial Power trying to keep control of a territory.
There was a very strong feeling in India that antagonistic feelings between Muslims and Hindus were stirred up by Britain. Ultimately India was divided to try to obtain a peaceful solution between Hindus and Muslims. This division of the sub-continent of India was made on the basis that there were considerable parts of the sub-continent in which

Muslims were in the majority, in the Punjab and Sind and the Indus Valley and Baluchistan and part of Bengal. In Ireland also it was possible to find a part in which there was definitely a local majority of the people who objected to Home Rule, and so there was the creation of the political entity of Northern Ireland.
Cyprus is altogether different. There is no part of the island in which there is a Turkish majority. In common, I think, with most other Members of the Committee, I have had sent to me frequently propaganda from both sides on Cyprus. Here is a very interesting booklet sent me recently by the Turkish Embassy in London. It contains a map which shows all the villages of the island, Turkish and Greek, the Greek being marked in grey and the Turkish in red, and it is easy to see from this that there is no part of the island which is predominantly red, and in which, therefore, the Turks are in a majority.
In the towns the same applies. There is one town, a small one, in which there is a Turkish majority, but even though the Turkish minority is larger than in the countryside the Greek majority is overwhelming in the towns. As in the countryside, there is no place but one in which there happens to be a Turkish majority. So I would say that the position in Cyprus is quite different from that which existed in India or in Ireland. There is no part of the area in which the minority has a substantial local majority and, therefore, there is no basis for carrying out any kind of partition.
When the Colonial Secretary put forward the idea of partition as a possible means of solving the differences in the island the Turkish Government welcomed it. Their suggestion was that the only satisfactory way of partitioning the island was by giving the whole of the northern half of the island to the Turks. That is the part where there is the least Turkish population, although it happens to be the part nearest to Turkey. It would mean that 17·9 per cent. of the population of the island would be given 50 per cent. of the area.
Partition would in any case mean exchanges of population within the island, tearing Greeks from their homes and tearing Turks from their homes and exchanging them. It would be inevitable if partition were to create any area with a


Turkish local majority. We do not want to see people torn from their homes and exchanged in this way if we can possibly avoid it, but if, however, people are to be torn up from their homes there is a very strong case indeed for saying to the Turks, "Go back to Anatolia." After all, the Turks originally came from there when they conquered the island from the Venetians. Turkey is under-populated. There are extensive areas in which there are no people at all. Greece and Cyprus are over-populated.
There have been exchanges of Greeks and Turks in the past to solve quarrels between them. Following the war between Greece and Turkey in 1921 and 1922, it might have been possible to have had an exchange of population with a fair division of territory in accordance with the size of their respective populations. That was not done because Greece was the loser of the war, and a large number of Greeks were expelled from Asia Minor, while a much smaller number of Turks were taken from Macedonia, Crete and other parts of Greece and sent back to Turkey.
Some years ago I had the interesting experience of visiting Turkey and seeing many of the villages where the Turks who had returned to Turkey had settled down. I remember one particularly in the Plain of Cilicia. It was marshy country. The people who had been settled there had been brought from the hill country of Thessaly in Greece, and more than half of them died in the first eighteen months. For one thing, the country was malarial, but in any case it was quite different from the country to which they had been used in Greece. The survivors become acclimatised some years later. They are successfully settled there now, but the point is that if we really want to tear people up from their homes, which is what partition means, the best way of doing this in Cyprus is to say to the Turkish minority that they should go back to Turkey, to settle there, where there is plenty of room for them.
Personally, I would rather have no such tearing up of people from their homes at all. It means an enormous dislocation of their whole lives, and we ought to find a solution which will prevent anything of that kind from occurring.
Partition will in any case bring an exchange of populations between the different parts of Cyprus. It must be avoided. If, however, people are to be forced to leave their homes I would rather that the Turkish population went back to Turkey.
It seems to be an extraordinary argument that 17·9 per cent. of the population should be enabled to dictate to the great majority of the population. Let us consider Scotland, 12 per cent. of whose population, I am told, is Irish or of Irish origin. If this Turkish proposal is valid for Cyprus is there not a case for giving a part of Scotland to Ireland because 12 per cent. of Scotland's population is Irish, is descended from people who went into Scotland within the last hundred years or so and settled there? It is quite preposterous to allow a minority of the population arriving in the country later than the majority to be given dominant overriding political rights.
Another point that should be borne in mind is that, in the time of the Ottoman Empire, the conquering army of Turks moved over enormous areas which it conquered, and Turks settled there. As its frontiers receded, so the population moved back to Anatolia. When the Greek revolt took place in 1821 it was accompanied by a very big exodus of Turks from the mainland of Greece itself. There had been a big Turkish minority there in the past, but they then moved out, and that happened in Crete, Macedonia and right away through the Balkans. The Turkish minorities have moved back as the frontiers of the Turkish State have moved back, and if there is a very strong demand from the Turks in Cyprus to be Turkish and to be in Turkey, then there is plenty of room for them. They can go back to Turkey and settle there.
I think that in this discussion we have to try to find a solution which will both prevent partition and the tearing up of populations. I do believe that, given good will and a lead from our Government here, that solution can be found giving the Turkish minority all the reasonable guarantees which it wants. Greece already has a Turkish minority living in Western Thrace, and there is a Greek minority living in Istanbul. The one in Western Thrace has declined a


little in the last twenty years, and many of the Turks have moved back to Turkey, but they have their own schools, freedom of religion and so on. One cannot say that the Greek population in Istanbul has always been treated very well in recent years; there were the very unfortunate anti-Greek riots of a few years ago.
If a lead can be given by our Government, and an agreement made by it with the Greek and Turkish Governments guaranteeing the rights of the Turkish minority in Cyprus, as well as those of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace and of the the Greeks in Istanbul, and particularly if the base has been retained in Cyprus and handed over to N.A.TO., and if foreign troops are stationed there for guaranteeing the carrying out of any minority treaty on behalf of the Turks, that would be a very satisfactory solution. It could last for many years, while we sought to give self-determination, followed possibly later by full union between Cyprus and Greece. Personally, I should be strongly against the removal of foreign troops from Cyprus during a long intermediate period, because it is very desirable that such troops should be retained there in order to see in the transition period that the minority guarantees worked.
I think that if the Government give a lead on these lines, we can find a solution of this problem which will give the Turkish minority in Cyprus all reasonable rights, guaranteed internationally as well as between the Turkish and Greek Governments and the British Government. I think we should then find that co-operation between races would come about again and that they would live happily together, as they have done in the past.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: We have heard the Under-Secretary discussing the future of Cyprus, and the sudden introduction of the threat of partition. I hope the Committee will bear with me if I continue my efforts, conciliatory though they have been, both in my maiden speech and at the various conferences on the future of Cyprus. I have had the good fortune to live in Cyprus, and, though I will not detain the Committee very long, I wish to put forward the various problems of both the Greek and Cypriot peoples which seem to me

to be rather lost in the verbiage of diplomatic exchanges and through conversations in official channels.
Last year, I took the trouble to see both the Governor and also Archbishop Makarios before he was deported, because it seemed to me interesting to hear from the Archbishop himself what he really thought about the future of the Cypriot people, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. After all, it is all very well for the Greek people and the Cypriot people to talk about Enosis, but what were the practical steps which the Archbishop or any other Cypriot had in mind? I thought that this was an important thing to discover, because everybody still believes that Enosis means union with Greece, the end of any connection with Great Britain, and, obviously, the Turkish minority coming under Greek Cypriot control.
Therefore, the following questions were put to the Archbishop. Do you imagine that if you had union with Greece the people of Cyprus would be anxious to join in doing Greek national army service? Can you tell me in what form and how mall taxation you would expect this island to pay towards Greek taxes? Can you please tell me what would be the position of the Communist party in Cyprus? Would it suffer the same disabilities as it suffers in Greece? The Archbishop replied in the very remarkable expression that, when the people of Cyprus had found their constitution, all these matters could be arranged. Therefore, the next problem was to try to find out what he thought was the ultimate destiny of Cyprus, and he said it was a free and independent State within the Greek union, and, probably—and this is now over a year ago—within the Commonwealth.
It seemed to me at that particular time that there was every hope that, if our Government could possibly make that gesture towards the people of Cyprus, we could find that some form of joint sovereignty would be evolved. Therefore, there are, to my mind, only two people in this world who can solve the Cyprus problem, once terrorism has died down. They would be the Archbishop himself and Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. They are the only two people who, to my mind, can bring peace to this troubled island.
The Archbishop is the only person with whom the British Government could possibly try to find a solution which is fair to this country, to the Greeks and to the Turks; but, at that time, the Government were suffering and labouring under a great difficulty in that the Chiefs of Staffs were determined that the sovereignty of Cyprus could not be compromised and could not be divided. I would also add that the Archbishop said "I have never, nor has the Greek Government ever, disputed that there should be a N.A.T.O. base on Cyprus which Britain could use."
However reluctantly, I must say that I came to the conclusion at the end of my visit that Her Majesty's military advisers, thinking about operations which were never likely to occur, but did in fact occur, believed that Cyprus would be necessary as a military base. Spokesmen experienced in military matters, including Field Marshal Auchinleck, have pronounced on the effectiveness of Cyprus as a military base. Therefore, from now on one can rule out that underlying problem of the adamant demands of the Chiefs of Staff that the island must remain a British base under British sovereignty. Therefore, there is hope now that the Government can possibly reopen negotiations.
There was a most unfortunate occurrence last year when it became known that Archbishop Makarios was believed to be involved in terrorism. [An HON. MEMBER: "Believed?"] It is not necessarily true, because the Government will not bring him to trial. If it were possible to bring this British subject to trial it would be a good thing. We have refused to bring him to trial. Yet he may well be implicated in this matter. According to the Cyprus Government, he was implicated and, therefore, he was removed from that scene. That was a mast regrettable action for Her Majesty's Government to have taken. Anybody with experience of the island and with any experience of the Orient should have known that nobody else would come forward to offer assistance to any of Her Majesty's advisers. Therefore, it was most regrettable that the Archbishop was sent into exile in the Seychelles.
The whole future of Cyprus causes very grave concern to anyone who has any real

interest in the island or in N.A.T.O. or in our ancient friendship with Greece and in our undertakings to Turkey. On two occasions methods of solving the problem have been suggested by allowing the Legislative Assembly at a distant date to send Turkish-Cypriot representatives to Ankara and Greek-Cypriot representatives to Athens. We must give the Cypriot people a definite undertaking that we do not intend to block self-determination for ever and that self-determination will be carried out, as suggested by the Greek Foreign Minister, by the decision of N.A.T.O., with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

Major Patrick Wall: Would my hon. Friend also include Turkey?

Mr. Yates: Naturally, Turkey, being a member of N.A.T.O. would be automatically included. For myself, and for the Colonial Secretary who has been on the island and knows a great many people there, this matter is a great tragedy for Aphrodite's Isle. The sooner we try to swallow a certain amount of pride and show humility the sooner we shall re-establish ourselves as a good, trustworthy, honest nation and leader of the free world.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I am sure that the Committee will have listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). It only shows that there is on both sides of the Committee a great deal of agreement on many aspects of this very difficult problem. We ought to try to see whether we can secure agreement on this vital question and not make party politics out of it. It is a vital international matter and we must try to seek agreement where we can. That does not mean that I am not prepared to disagree very much with the Government on certain foreign affairs, as I did over Suez, but here is a matter where division is less clear and where, with a more reasonable chance of success, we can try to get a solution.
The Committee is asked to vote a sum of money to deal with the emergency in Cyprus. I think that we have no option but to do so, not that I would be against reducing the sum by £100 because I was not satisfied with everything said by the


Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, although I agreed with a great deal of it. If the Colonial Secretary, in winding up the debate, gives me a little more hope, I shall have to consider the possibility of abstaining from voting, to show that I want to secure as much agreement as I can.
I was in Cyprus last autumn and I formed the opinion that no improvement was possible without the Grivas gangs being first suppressed. That is a sine qua non, the first thing that must be done. I entirely agree with the Government's policy in that respect, and they seem to be getting somewhere with it. I went to a village on the edge of the forest in the Troodos Mountains and found that a large number of Greeks in the village were frightened to co-operate with the Government although they wanted to do so and told me so. They were frightened of being murdered.
I went to lunch in a restaurant with a party. The woman restaurant-keeper, who had two daughters who were married to British private soldiers, and was proud of it, told me, when we asked to have lunch outside, under the trees, that she would prefer that we did not, because there might be people in the forest who might see what she was doing and she would be in trouble. So I realise very well that until steps are taken to get rid of these gangs we shall not be able to get a fair expression of opinion by the Greek Cypriots. When I flew back and touched down in Athens for a short while I saw on the airport official Greek propaganda accusing our troops of atrocities in Cyprus. It is quite clear from the way that they behave that the Greek Government are responsible for this sort of thing. Foreigners have their minds poisoned by looking at this propaganda in the airport.
But we are entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government, "What now?" We are entitled to ask them to think what is to be their policy for the future. It is important that when the Greek-Cypriots are free from this terror there should be someone who will speak for them. It would be nice to think that there are other people besides Archbishop Makarios who would come forward and speak for the Greeks. I believe that the Archbishop has been implicated in terrorism in one way or another. I regard

him as a shifty Greek priest who is not to be trusted. But the tragedy is that I do not believe there is anyone else who is capable of speaking for the Greeks today. Makarios is, in fact, the natural Greek leader, and I hope that once the influence of Grivas and his gang is removed he will see that his game with terrorism is not worth the candle.
Unfortunately, the Colonial Secretary has to deal with something which is the fault of nobody, that is, the history and tradition of Cyprus. There is on the island the old Ottoman tradition of the so-called "Millet" system—that is the Turkish word for "people". The old Ottoman Empire "peoples" accepted the suzerainty of the Sultan. And Cyprus has only been out of the Ottoman Empire for seventy-nine years. That is not the case in Greece proper, which has been out of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 130 years. However, the "millet" system, which has existed for hundreds of years since the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, has made the religious leaders also the political leaders, and it is an historical fact which we have to realise.
Since Cyprus has been so recently within The Ottoman Empire, it is difficult to find anyone else, even if we remove Colonel Grivas and his gangs. I know that the authorities in Cyprus seem to think that they can find someone, but I think they are wrong, because they underestimate the historical traditions of the island.
I believe that the Colonial Secretary was right to exile Archbishop Makarios last year, but I do not think that he is right to continue it. The right hon. Gentleman must now consider ways and means of bringing him back, because all evidence is to the effect that terrorism is being suppressed. So, in the absence of finding anyone else, the Colonial Secretary will have to find a way by which that can be done. If Makarios will not renounce terrorism openly—and one can understand that it is difficult for him to do so, because it would affect his dignity and self-respect—some way must be found to enable him to do it.
The position rather resembles the position today between Israel and Egypt over the Sinai Peninsula and the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel wants guarantees and yet, technically, she is the aggressor. So a


legal way has to be found, and it is the problem of the United Nations and of the United States to find it in order to solve the conundrum. That is also the problem of the Colonial Secretary. I must say that I do not envy him, because it will not be easy to solve. I personally wish him every success and I have given my humble opinion of the way it must be done.
We have spent this money to fight terrorism, and the Committee is also entitled to know the intentions of the Government about the future system of government in Cyprus. I hope very much, as do all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee and many hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Radcliffe Constitution can be put into effect, and that as a next stage there will be self-government in the island. That would give the Greeks a chance to play an important rôle in the internal affairs of Cyprus. It would also give the Turks what they have every right to demand, guarantees for the rights of the minority. The reserve powers of the Governor over foreign affairs, the Army and the police are a further guarantee for Turkish rights.
That is essential in this next immediate stage. Of course, the Greeks do not like that, because they want all the Governor's reserve powers to be removed. Theirs is the simple philosophy that because they are a majority, they are entitled to rule the island. But the simple right of self-determination cannot be granted to one people, even the majority, if there is a minority there which does not agree. I am afraid that many people do not understand this.
The Charter of the United Nations refers to rights of the freedom of "peoples" in the plural, not just "people". How often have we had cases where self-determination has been granted to a majority who immediately start to bully a minority. That must not be allowed. Each people has a right to self-determination, including a minority. That is important, also, when we consider the more distant future. The Government have agreed to self-determination in principle but they cannot mean, I hope, that Greek sovereignty, pure and simple, is to be established in the island even in the distant future. The Turkish minority will not accept it. One hon. Gentleman opposite said this would mean civil disturb-

ances in the island. It would mean civil war. Other considerations must modify the rights of self-determination, namely, the strategic and economic interests of neighbours.
Unfortunately, when President Wilson put forward his Fourteen Points, at the end of the First World War, he spoke of self-determination, but it was never defined. I repeat that the interests of neighbours must be considered also, both economic and strategic. How can one accept Greek sovereignty on the island, even with a N.A.T.O. base, unless the Turks have a strong guarantee for the protection of their southern coast, where the great port of Iskanderun, the most important military port of Turkey for the defence of her eastern frontier, is there in sight of Cyprus?
As I have said, the right of self-determination must be conditioned by the social and economic interests of minorities. There are the social and economic interests of the Turkish minorities in Cyprus and the strategic interests of the neighbouring republic of Turkey. These cannot be satisfied by allowing Greece to be the sole sovereign in the island.
Unfortunately, the relations between Greece and Turkey have so deteriorated in recent years that no confidence exists between them. Less than ten years ago, I was present in the Taxim Maidan Square, in Istanbul, at the anniversary of the Battle of Sakaria. I saw the parade of the Turkish troops before the President and I would not have known from the Turkish Press of Istanbul that day who was the enemy. Greece was not mentioned, so good were the relations then. Alas, how easily have the century-old fires of the old Turkish-Greece animosity been stirred up again. I have my own ideas as to why that has happened, but it would take too much of the time of the Committee if I gave my reasons why that animosity has boiled up within the last few years.
I feel that if ultimately self-determination is granted to the island, there must be something other than pure Greek sovereignty there. Even the creation of a N.A.T.O. base is not enough. N.A.T.O. cannot give a political guarantee to the Turks about their status. Moreover, the Turks feel that a N.A.T.O. base on the island, with Greek sovereignty, would not give them security because they say that


N.A.T.O. exists legally only for twenty years. We hope it will go on, but they say that, legally speaking, that is not sufficient guarantee for them.
On the other hand, I feel it is very important that the Government—I hope the Colonial Secretary will tell us something about this—should give up the foolish idea that we can any longer hold Cyprus as a British base. I should have thought that the fiasco of Suez would have shown us that that was so. The idea is as dead as the dodo.
There must be other ways in which we can satisfy the Turkish claim that, ultimately, if self-determination is agreed to, there shall be some solution other than that of pure Greek sovereignty on the island. Personally, I favour the idea of a Condominium. I believe that, ultimately, sovereignty might be held jointly by this country, Turkey and Greece. I do not believe that it would be possible for Greece and Turkey to hold it together, because the present relations between the two countries are too bad and, one never knows, although we hope they will improve, historical forces may always well up again.
Difficult though the solution may be, I also hope the Government will give up the foolish idea of trying to partition the island. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has said, that is not possible. But I did not agree with my hon. Friend that the Turks must be turned out of the island. That will not do at all; they are perfectly entitled to stay. We must find some other solution than that, but partition is not possible. One has only to go about the island a little while to see that the movement of the population from one side to the other would mean a great deal of difficulty, trouble and unhappiness. We must try to get the people to live together in one way or another.
It is also no use our thinking that the creation of a N.A.T.O. base will help to solve all the problems. It will help to solve only one problem. It may make Turkey less fearful about her great port of Iskanderun. But it will not dispel the fear of the rest of the Turkish islanders that if Greek sovereignty is established they may not be given a fair deal. These people must be given some guarantee, and the only ultimate solution that I can visualise is some form of condominium. If

we remain there, we shall be able by our influence, which I hope we shall retain, to keep the two peoples working together.
I hope that we may still find some common ground between both sides of the Committee so that we may all regard the great Cyprus question with objectivity and understand the traditions and history of the island and its peoples. If we do that, I believe that we can, with patience, reach a solution and we must always remember that we cannot solve international questions without patience.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said he hoped that this debate would not have much effect on the debate taking place in the United Nations. I took this to mean that he was conscious of the fact that there is normally a division of opinion in the House about our attitude to Cyprus and that he hoped that that would not have any influence on the debate on the other side of the Atlantic.
If every speech from the Opposition were like that of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), we should show a fairly united front in our attitude to the problem. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, his speech was a great improvement on the usual Opposition Front Bench speech, a great improvement, for instance, on the speech one might have expected if the deputy Leader of the Opposition had opened the debate.
Even so, there were a few expressions in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East which were unfortunate. He said that what we were doing in Cyprus at the moment amounted to totalitarianism. How does anybody expect terrorism to be suppressed without using fairly ruthless methods? What are the methods of the terrorists but totalitarianism itself?

Mr. G. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman explain when patriotism ceases to become patriotism and becomes terrorism? He lauds the response of local nationals against foreign troops in Hungary. Does he not expect the same in Cyprus?

Mr. Russell: That is a little different. Foreign troops have invaded Hungary. We have been in Cyprus by agreement


with the Turks and the Greeks since 1878. The Treaty of Lausanne, between Turkey and ourselves, was agreed to by the Greeks. The situation is entirely different from that in Hungary.

Sir F. Soskice: The hon. Gentleman has made a most important point. Are we to understand that he is advocating the use of totalitarian methods in the repression of the terrorists? Is it his argument that it is the consequence of Government policy that totalitarian methods have now to be used?

Mr. Russell: I do not follow that argument.

Sir F. Soskice: Then might I explain it? The hon. Member asked what one could expect except the use of totalitarian methods to repress terrorism. There is terrorism. Does he, therefore, advocate the use of totalitarian methods to repress it? Further, does he accept that the use of totalitarian methods is the effect of the Government's policy?

Mr. Russell: I fully agree with the methods which the Government are using to suppress terrorism. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman opposite, likes to call them "totalitarian", he is entitled to do so, but I do not think that any Government in any part of the world has ever succeeded in suppressing terrorism without using fairly drastic methods.
The Labour Party used fairly drastic methods in Malaya when the terrorist campaign there broke out in 1948. Unfortunately, as with so many other examples of the policy of the Labour Government in dealing with matters of that kind, the Labour Party did not use drastic enough methods, and it failed to suppress the campaign. It was left to the Conservative Government eventually to adopt rather more drastic methods, and now terrorism in Malaya has more or less been wiped out. No right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite will dispute that. The number of acts of terrorism now taking place in Malaya is very small compared with a few years ago. The same applies to the Mau Mau campaign in Kenya. That has been done by using firm methods.
What I cannot understand about the members of the Labour Party is that they

seem to condone terrorism. At least, they are very reluctant to condemn it. Their attitude seems to be that one can do nothing about it and must give in to it. As I said in an Adjournment debate on the subject just before Christmas, there seem to be only two alternatives for dealing with the problem of terrorism in Cyprus. One is to give in to it, and the other is to try to suppress it. Hon. Members opposite have to choose between those alternatives only. As far as I can make out, there are a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would like to give in to it.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is a third alternative, which is to remove the causes of terrorism?

Mr. Russell: No. How can one remove the causes of terrorism except by giving the terrorists what they want? That means giving in to terrorism.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke about 18,000 British troops holding down the people of Cyprus and costing the Cypriots their liberty. The only people who are being held down by 18,000 British troops and their methods are the terrorists. Law-abiding people in Cyprus are not very much inconvenienced by the methods employed by British troops. In any case, what other methods would hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest to combat the terrorism, unless they did not want to combat it but wished to give in to it?
What I also cannot understand about the attitude of the party opposite is this. When they were in power from 1945 to 1951 they took exactly the same attitude as we on this side take now about the question of self-determination in Cyprus. When this matter was raised at Question Time, on 21st June, 1950, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who was then Minister of State, said:
It has repeatedly been made clear that no change in the sovereignty of the Island is contemplated.
He also went on to say—and this is quite an illuminating remark:
Very large numbers of people in Cyprus can, and do, see for themselves that they are very much better off under us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1279–80.]
That was a fairly definite and firm statement of policy by a responsible Minister


speaking for the Socialist Government on the attitude of self-determination in Cyprus.
What has happened since then to make them change their attitude? It is only the campaign of terrorism and the violent campaign of Enosis from within the island and from Greece. Indeed, the only reason that they have changed their policy is that there has been a campaign started by the Greek Government and by the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus, backed up by terrorism. Nothing else has happened since then that has made them change their policy.

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Member must be fair. The policy which has been pursued for many years by this party was adopted officially long before terrorism started in Cyprus.

Mr. Russell: I still do not see what has made them change their policy—

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member said that it was only terrorism.

Mr. Russell: —from the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich, speaking on behalf of the Government in 1950.
No explanation has been made by any right hon. or hon. Gentleman, so far as I can remember, in any of the debates that we have had on Cyprus for that change of policy, except that they want to give in to the aspirations of the Greek Church and a comparative handful of terrorists. I am sure that there is no more desire, if the inhabitants could express their opinion, on the part of the mass of the population of Cyprus for union with Greece than there was seven years ago during the time of the Labour Government.

Mr. Fernyhough: Give them a chance.

Mr. Russell: It is impossible to give them a chance until terrorism has been abolished and people can vote freely without any fear at all. Half the problems can be solved by removing the fear of a bullet in the back which any Greek Cypriot expects to get if he is in any way disloyal to or professes against the Greek Church.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Does the hon. Member remember that the terrorist campaign

was called off and there was some peace? It was only when Field Marshal Harding offered his terms of surrender, which were terms offering to mutineers complete and abject surrender, that the terrorist campaign was begun again.

Mr. Russell: I think that the only way to suppress terrorism completely is by demanding complete surrender.

Mr. Popplewell: It was stopped.

Mr. Russell: It was not stopped in circumstances which were thought satisfactory to the Governor or the Government.
Another thing which I cannot understand about the attitude of the party opposite is its complaint about the lack of freedom to the Press or to the public in general, considering some of the measures of which it approved when it was in power. In June, 1950, about the same time as the previous statement which I quoted, it was regretted that six out of eight members of the town council of Limassol were imprisoned for ignoring the law governing a very simple subject, the changing of the names of streets. If the party opposite can approve a law which allows members of the town council to be imprisoned for infringing a law like that, surely it has no right whatever to grumble at laws which are made to stop the infringement of much more grave matters.
I cannot understand the change of attitude that is taking place over this. That imprisonment was upheld by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich in just the same way as the party opposite upheld so many things that we uphold now that we are in power. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East to have the Archbishop back unconditionally in order to open negotiations with him. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West said, the first step is to suppress terrorism and then we can think about bringing back the Archbishop. I am sure that it would be absolutely fatal for us to bring him back until terrorism has been suppressed.

Mr. Philips Price: What I did say was that, having suppressed terrorism, or having nearly done so, we should then


find a way for bringing him back which would in no way undermine his dignity in certain respects. The business of the Colonial Secretary is to find a way of doing it.

Mr. Russell: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I will not quarrel with him on that point, but I hope that he will agree that before we can have the Archbishop back terrorism must be suppressed, unless the hon. Gentleman condones violence. I cannot understand why an Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church, or for that matter of any Church, cannot quite simply condemn violence, unless he is grossly implicated in it.

Mr. W. Yates: Why the Archbishop cannot condemn violence is because if he did so it would be thought that he was doing so under duress.

Mr. Russell: The Under-Secretary of State gave a short account of the case being made by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the debate in the United Nations. What he did not say, which I saw reported in at least one newspaper this morning, was that the terrorists are being supplied by the Greek Government with arms carried in the diplomatic bag. If that statement is correct I think that it is monstrous that the Greek Government should be violating normal diplomatic custom, and I hope that that will be broadcast all over the United Nations, particularly in the debate that is taking place there now.
Finally, I think that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West mentioned—it certainly was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East—the strategic importance of Cyprus to Turkey. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are often apt to forget the Turkish point of view in this and that it has been repeatedly stated by the Turks that they cannot allow Cyprus to be handed over to Greece because of the threat to Turkey itself from an island so near to the shores of Asia Minor being in possibly hostile hands.
This brings up the whole question of whether the N.A.T.O. base is useful or not. I will not argue that, but what is to happen if Cyprus did unite with Greece and a Communist Government took control in Greece and, therefore, in Cyprus

as well? That is a point which no hon. Gentleman opposite has faced up to and it is another reason why we cannot give up Cyprus in response to this terrorist campaign.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Most of my hon. Friends will have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) with profound distress. His argument about how to deal with terrorism reflects very accurately the point of view which has been responsible for twelve tragic months in Cyprus, with a mounting death roll, growing misery, hatred and anger since the time of the deportation of Archbishop Makarios. If the hon. Member thinks that the way to deal with terrorism is either to succumb to the terrorists, or eliminate them, then I am afraid that I must part company with him straight away.
I should like to take the debate to a slightly different level and start by reminding the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that it is almost exactly a year since he and I were together in Nicosia, he to try to secure a settlement of the Cyprus problem, and I at the joint request of the Archbishop and the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden. It would be quite unreasonable of us on this side of the Committee, particularly today, to expect the Secretary of State to come before the Committee, as many of us on this side of the Committee think he should, in the guise of a penitent, who has at last recognised the tragic folly of many of the calamitous mistakes which he has made in the last twelve months.
We do not expect that. We should like to see it, but we realise that the rôle of a penitent apologising for his mistakes is not one particularly well suited to the right hon. Gentleman. We know that whatever his private thoughts and misgivings on this matter—and he must have had many in the last twelve months—he has suppressed them when he has come to the House, because his party's fortunes are at their lowest ebb at the moment, because his own political fortunes have suffered their worst set-back, because he is responsible for the terrible deadlock which persists in Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. John Eden: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to speak with his foot in the Gangway?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I did not notice anything out of order.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that we can take it that the Secretary of State is big enough to protect himself against me.
I shall explain why we understand the Secretary of State's reticence in this debate. One of the most important—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is very curious—

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is nothing curious about it. If I can finish this part of my argument, the Secretary of State can say anything he likes.
We expected the right hon. Gentleman to be particularly sensitive today—indeed, he is showing that he is very sensitive—for the further reason that this question is now being debated by the United Nations. He has the unhappy task of putting as bold a face as he can on the manifest bankruptcy of the policy which he and the Government have been pursuing in Cyprus for the past twelve months. We sympathise with him very much in his predicament. Some of us are sorry for him and others think that he deserves everything that in due course he is going to get.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member has long since passed from the point to which I wanted to direct his attention. He said that I must have had some doubts about the action I took when I authorised the deportation of Archbishop Makarios Whatever doubts I have about any action I have taken in any part of the Colonial Empire, of this I am certain: our action in deporting the Archbishop, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) has said, was correct, the only possible action that we could have taken, and I shall never regret the action we took.
The only alternative to deporting the Archbishop was arresting and detaining him in Cyprus itself. It would have been impossible to take any action against

lesser offenders in Cyprus unless action had been taken against the Archbishop. Equally, it would have been imposing on the Governor of Cyprus and the security troops in Cyprus an intolerable burden if they had had the Archbishop locked up in the island. Of the two alternatives, we took the only possible one, and I suggest that any responsible Government would have done the same.

Mr. Noel-Baker: All I can say is that I am saddened to hear the Secretary of State, once again, repeat what I think is a totally unjustified point of view. He knows very well why I cannot agree with him. One of the reasons I feel sorry to hear it said again is that it only makes greater the humiliation which he will suffer when Archbishop Makarios comes back triumphantly on the Cypriot scene.
If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept, as, of course, we do not expect him publicly to do, our contention about the calamitous mistake he made twelve months ago, at least he has to admit that every move he has made since that time has proved to be wrong, every one of the forecasts he made at that time has been falsified by events, and almost every result he expected has been shown to be misjudged since that tragic day when he walked out of the meeting in the house of the Anglican Archdeacon of Nicosia at the end of his discussion with Archbishop Makarios, twelve months ago.
Things are now so bad in Cyprus, in the Levant and the Middle East that one hesitates to indulge in criticism of the past, however exasperating it is to us and to those who see the spectacle of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary blundering on with their patently ludicrous efforts to justify their many calamitous mistakes. I will put only these questions to the right hon. Gentleman. When he kidnapped and deported the Archbishop and imprisoned him without trial in the middle of the Indian Ocean, he claimed that by removing the effective leader, he would stop the terrorist campaign. Has terrorism decreased or increased since the Archbishop was removed? Did the E.O.K.A. campaign collapse or did E.O.K.A. intensify its work? Did support for E.O.K.A. on the Island of Cyprus get less or steadily stronger every day? Have fewer lives been lost in Cyprus or more? Is Cyprus now more peaceful or more drenched in anger, bitterness and blood?
Surely, with the death roll steadily mounting, with new incidents every day, with nearly 30,000 troops and police in action in Cyprus, there is only one answer which the Secretary of State can give to those questions.
What of his claim that the removal of the Archbishop would make way for moderate political elements to come in and take his place? Where are those moderate political elements today? Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single Cypriot group, party or body of people, a single Cypriot individual of any prominence or standing whatever, who has not publicly and unreservedly lined himself behind the leadership of the Archbishop since the deportation, men ranging from Communist mayors on the extreme Left to Sir Paul Pavlides and Mr. John Clerides, former members of the Executive Council on the Right?
Has not the effect of deporting the Archbishop of Cyprus been to make him more influential, more authoritative, more powerful than ever before? Has it not made it absolutely certain that when we get a political settlement in Cyprus, the one triumphant figure in the settlement will be Archbishop Makarios III? Did we not warn the Secretary of State of this privately and publicly over and over again? Has not every one of the predictions which we made twelve months ago, when the Archbishop was deported, turned out to be perfectly true?
I turn to the shabby and undignified campaign of villification which, to justify their own mistakes, the Government have let loose against the Archbishop, making sure, meanwhile, that the Archbishop is gagged and stifled, having his mail censored and sometimes stolen, held incommunicado in the middle of the Indian Ocean and with no possible opportunity to reply to the slanders and libels flung against him. In passing, I should like to say that this shocking and thoroughly un-British personal campaign of calumny has left him completely unmoved, as it has left the Greeks of Greece and Cyprus unmoved.
I am still convinced that we would and could have reached agreement with the Archbishop twelve months ago. The Secretary of State knows very well my reason for saying that. I am convinced that it is still the Archbishop, and only the

Archbishop, with whom we shall reach agreement, or else we shall never reach a settlement. I am unconvinced by the degrading, cheap and dishonest pamphleteering to which the Government of Cyprus has been reduced. Three days ago the Secretary of State authorised the publication of a leaflet which was apparently printed in December, and about which I wish to say a word in a moment.
Before doing so, however, I should like to explain my attitude to the Archbishop. I have no particular reason for defending or supporting the Archbishop. The Secretary of State knows how hard I tried to do everything I could—with his authority and with the authority of the then Prime Minister—to persuade the Archbishop to be more flexible in the negotiations which took place in the same way as I pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman to show greater flexibility.
At one time the Secretary of State spoke of the distaste which he claimed he had felt during the period of the discussions with the Archbishop in Nicosia. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had not said that. It casts a very unpleasant shadow on his own position during those negotiations. It would be a temptation to use similar language now and to say that we on this side of the Committee find it profoundly distasteful to associate ourselves politically in any way with a Minister whose policy has brought such disaster and misery on the people whose lives and welfare it was his responsibility to protect.
We deplore and despise those policies, but, nevertheless, we believe that a fair and peaceful settlement is more important than any party or other consideration. If we saw any sign of a real change of heart and a genuine attempt to end this bloody deadlock in Cyprus, the Secretary of State knows that he could count on us giving him all possible help and encouragement.
I wish to refer for a moment to the extraordinary, cheap and shoddy little pamphlet which was published last Friday by the Government of Cyprus. I wish to ask these questions of the Secretary of State. What is the purpose of this ludicrous little production? Who is the intolerable humbug who writes with such self-righteous smugness of impiety and blasphemy and then has the effrontery to print the Ten Commandments on the


back cover of this dirty little piece of paper? When was it written? Why does it carry the date, 15th December, on the inside cover? Why was it produced out of cold storage only three days ago? Was it to startle the Scandinavian delegates at the United Nations? Or was it to encourage some of the disgruntled, half-hearted back-benchers opposite. What was the reason for it?
I put these points to the Secretary of State in all seriousness. If the vile implications in this smear campaign against the Archbishop are true, why does not the right hon. Gentleman publish the documents on which they are based? Why does he not publish the text of the letters to which he refers here? Why does he not publish the papers which he took from the Archbishopric nearly a year ago? Why produce this tendentious and vile document without producing the evidence on which it is based? If these grave allegations—they are grave allegations—which the right hon. Gentleman makes against the Archbishop are justified—I have often pleaded with him to do this before—why does he not have the decency and courage to repeat them in a court of law, and allow the Archbishop an opportunity to reply?
Is it not monstrous by any standard that lesser men should be tried and hanged for crimes, of the real responsibility for which the Archbishop is now accused; given no chance to answer and not even charged with any offence? This is, perhaps, the shabbiest part of the whole of the Government's policy, the meanest aspect of the whole miserable business. The Government must make up their minds whether the Archbishop is a criminal with whom they will have no further dealings. If that be so, will they hand him over to the processes of the law? Or do they admit, as, of course, they do, that their whole approach to the Archbishop was wrong, full of misunderstanding and miscalculation, and that one day the Archbishop is bound to come back triumphant to Cyprus; and that their mean and spiteful smear campaign is only adding to their eventual humiliation?
Of course, their mean-minded policy towards the only Greek-Cypriot leader has been calamitous from every point of view. Its only effect upon the Archbishop himself has been enormously to

increase his prestige, authority and power. While everyone else, the Greek and Turkish Governments, ourselves and the Government of Cyprus, have been making blunder after blunder, the Archbishop has been carefully protected from making even the smallest miscalculation. So, on any basis, the policy of exile and deportation is ludicrous. In many ways the Archbishop himself will be profoundly grateful in the future for what the Secretary of State has done to him during the past twelve months.
Now I turn for a moment to a little less thorny ground. I wish to say a word about two other men who have played an important, but I feel a difficult and unhappy part in this tragic problem. I hope that what I say will not be thought to be impudent or disrespectful, because I have the highest regard for both of them. Bitterly though I disagree with the policies they have had to carry out, I think that some expression of that respect should come from this side of the Committee.
First, I wish to refer to that loyal, able and most courageous ambassador, Sir Charles Peake, our representative in Athens, whose hard duty it has been to pass the last few years of a distinguished diplomatic career in one of the most disagreeable and difficult situations it is possible to imagine. Throughout his years at Athens, and over and over again, he has given the Greeks evidence of his cordial friendship for them. His philanthropic work and that of his wife has included selfless help to many philhellenic causes—earthquake relief, in particular—from the restoring of the beautiful palace of St. Michael and St. George, at Corfu, to ceaseless efforts, within the strict limit of his duty, to serve the real interests of Greece and Greek-British friendship.
At times, most deplorably, our Ambassador in Athens has been the victim of scurrilous, offensive and wholly unjustified insults in the Press. Some foolish Greeks have even thought that one way of showing their disapproval of British policy was by being discourteous to the British Ambassador and his staff. It must be a satisfaction to him to know how many Greek friends understand the difficulties he has been through and admire the courage and patience which he has shown.
I should like also to say a word about another central figure in the tragic story of contemporary Cyprus; perhaps the most tragic figure of all, although he himself would never give any indication on the subject, for he is a man—as the Secretary of State knows—who keeps himself and his thoughts very much to himself. His treatment by the Secretary of State is perhaps, on the personal level, the saddest story of all.
Sir John Harding is a most distinguished soldier, a man who quickly earns the respect and admiration of everyone who has had the good fortune to work with him in any way. Nobody could possibly doubt for a moment his good faith, his high principles and his fundamental humanity and understanding. Bitterly though I disagree with the policies he has had to implement; lamentable though I find the results of what he has had to do, I have never for a moment wavered in my respect and regard for the Governor.
I hope that nothing I say today will seem personally offensive to him. But from the first day I called on him at Government House, in Nicosia, I felt a grave distrust at the unfair way in which he had been treated by the Government in London. He was plunged into an immensely complex political problem with no political advisers; with a woefully inadequate administrative staff; with no real contact with the people he was asked to govern, with no proper policy or guidance and no constructive ideas from the Government in London. What a monstrous situation into which to throw a respected field-marshal at the very peak of a long and distinguished military career.
Perhaps the Secretary of State does not have the Archbishop of Cyprus very heavily on his conscience. He has no need to, because in the contest between them the Archbishop of Cyprus has come out on top. One thing is certain: unless the right hon. Gentleman has a dramatic and complete change of heart very soon he and his colleagues will have good reason to have Sir John Harding on their consciences for many years to come.
The present situation of the Governor of Cyprus illustrates very clearly the basic mistakes of our policy throughout

recent years. On this side of the Committee we do not seek to justify everything that has been done by previous Governments. But today one thing is certain. The Governor of Cyprus, in Government House, on the hill outside Nicosia, surrounded by barbed wire and protected by paratroops with machine guns, is totally isolated from the people he is asked to govern.
With the Greeks who make up three quarters of the population of the island he has no contact. Indeed, throughout his term of office and for many years before, it has been lack of contact which has made the British in Cyprus seem to many Cypriots the uninterested and unwanted alien rulers of their beautiful island. A little more contact, a little more understanding, particularly among British officials in the island and, in the past, a higher standard among Governors themselves, and how different the situation today might have been. Fundamentally, we have only ourselves and our own failings to blame—this applies to both sides of the Committee—for what is happening in Cyprus at the present time.
In saying that I do not excuse successive Greek Governments for their many foolish and exasperating actions, or for the reckless way in which the late Field Marshal Papagos plunged his country into the ill-timed Cypriot adventure, or for the feeble way Greek Governments tolerate, and are mesmerised by, the filthy propaganda—there is no other word—of most of their Press, which is an insult to the highly intelligent Greek public. Nor can we excuse the disastrous—from their own point of view—propaganda which goes out daily from Athens Radio. These and many other foolish acts have done much to weaken the cause of Greek union with Cyprus, but they do nothing whatever to justify the British Government's failures or the recent rash and dangerous moves which have been taking place in Turkey.
It is my belief that Greco-Turkish friendship is of vital importance to the stability and security not only of the area, but of the Turks and Greeks themselves. It is a tragedy that efforts which were made only a few years ago, and which seemed to be meeting with such success, to build up Greco-Turkish friendship and alliance should be brought to naught very largely because of the actions of the British Government.
One thing which is certain is that the eventual settlement in Cyprus must be acceptable to the Turks as well as to the Greeks, but I do not think that we have to tolerate a Turkish veto on anything that we propose. I have many Turkish friends, and I am proud to include among them the present Prime Minister, Mr. Menderes, and a number of his close advisers. I know that they will not resent it when I remind them that it is a major interest to their own country to get the Cyprus problem solved quickly, and that intransigence and violent language do not help Turkey any more than they help Greece.
Unfortunately, the world has not forgotten, and many thousands of Christians in particular have not forgotten, the lamentable events which took place in September, 1955, in Istanbul, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred in his excellent speech. That was a chapter of shame for Turkey, for the new nation founded by Kemal Attaturk and it has sullied Turkish reputation and prestige. I refer to it now only because in recent weeks there have, in certain quarters, been sinister threats that similar outrages might take place once again in Istanbul, threats against the Greek community there and even threats against the Oecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity of urging his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make it very clear that any such move against Greek and Christian minorities in Turkey would be viewed with the gravest concern by the British Government and our allies.
I hope that the Turkish Government realise that if such threats persist then Greece may be forced to look squarely at the whole problem of minorities in the two countries and to face up to an eventual exchange that would mean the departure to their homelands not only of Greeks from Istanbul, but also of all the Turks who are still living peacefully in Greece and of the Turks from Cyprus. I doubt very much whether an upheaval of that kind would be anything but a disaster for either country. It certainly would be a calamity for Turkey.
I will say only a brief word about partition. What a tragic thing it would be, if three generations of British rule should

end in the calamitous confession of failure which a partition of the island would be.
I turn now to the present state of Cyprus and I would put four short questions to the Secretary of State. First, can he deny that in the past twelve months there has been a terrible deterioration in the situation, and that anger, bitterness and hatred have grown so much as to threaten very seriously the hope of future co-operation between Greek Cypriots and the British?
Secondly can the right hon. Gentleman deny that there has been a series of the gravest allegations against troops and members of the police, particularly the special branch and the police interrogators and members of the mobile reserve, and that these allegations are widely believed and have done our reputation and the prospects of a settlement most serious damage?
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman deny that with every month that has passed since the Archbishop was sent away from Cyprus Cyprus has become more and more a police State? The hon. Member for Wembley, South complained of talk about totalitarian methods. What other name can we give to the situation in Cyprus at present, with its emergency regulations, imprisonment without arrest, special Press laws, and all the other paraphernalia of old-fashioned, reactionary colonialism at its worst?
Finally, can the Secretary of State effectively deny—I hope he can—responsibility for the grim, new spectre which is now haunting the streets of the towns and villages of Cyprus, a spectre which many people believe we have had a hand in creating and letting loose? I refer to the appalling outbreaks which have taken place in Nicosia and Famagusta in recent weeks by Turkish mobs on the lives and property of the Greeks on the island. For all these things—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member really believes the generous words he used about Sir John Harding, he should know that any such suggestion as that to which he is now referring is monstrous and scurrilous, and that no Government for which Sir John Harding was responsible could have conceived, started or encouraged inter-communal riots. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both


ways. He cannot give those praises to Sir John Harding and then link his name with the allegation that he might have tolerated such a gross abuse of power.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I must ask the Secretary of State to withdraw that remark. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman should withdraw."] I am not making allegations. I am telling the Secretary of State that these things are widely believed in Cyprus and in the rest of the world. The right hon. Gentleman should face the facts that I am giving him, and which affect the good name of Britain.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman might well have followed up his observations by saying that he knew that the allegations could not be true of any Government headed by Sir John Harding, to whom he has just paid such a lavish tribute.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I follow up my observations by saying that, as the result of bitter experience, it is not enough for the Secretary of State simply to get up and say that something is monstrous. We want facts and a proper refutation of the allegations that have been made. The right hon. Gentleman will find that British interests are far better served not by losing his temper, but by having a proper investigation of the allegations.
The Secretary of State has a terrible responsibility. The things of which we have been speaking are the direct consequence of his failure to reach the political agreement which he could and should have reached a year ago; of his decision at that time to shoot it out; to force the Cypriot Greeks, by curfews and searches, by detentions and executions, by military operations and military Government, by brute force, by stifling the last vestiges of freedom, by all these terribly degrading and degraded means, to reach agreement with him on his terms.
The Greeks are not like that. They do not respond to out-of-date, reactionary, nineteenth century Tory methods. They do not react in the way that the Secretary of State expects, nor, for that matter, did the Irish, or the Indians, or the Africans, or the Malays. Twelve months ago, when the Secretary of State started on his present policy of brute force, there was a phrase current in the Colonial Office, and in Cyprus, which was used to justify his

terribly mistaken decision. In those days they spoke about "the light at the end of the tunnel."
The light at the end of that tunnel went out many months ago, and the Secretary of State is now plunging about in the darkness, clutching at shadows, determined, it seems, to go on and on along a path that leads to nowhere but to misery, hatred and bloodshed. The Cypriot people cannot stand misery, hatred, and bloodshed very much longer—nor can our own people. That is why we make a last appeal to the Secretary of State, and say to him, "Your policy has failed utterly; it has brought nothing but disaster. Change it, or, for God's sake, go."

6.51 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I were to mention all the things with which so many of us on this side disagree that have been spoken by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), I should not only take up the time of the Committee until ten o'clock but I should also bore everybody very much. I would, however, like to remind him that a bad case is not made any better by the number of abusive adjectives and nouns that are inserted into every sentence, nor by merely repeating, time and again, a series of carefully-worked-out and, doubtless, checked-in-the-dictionary epithets against the Secretary of State. That is not to make one's argument any better nor to make any positive contribution to this debate.
As regards the tributes which the hon. Member paid to various individuals, he knows probably better than any one how much regard Archbishop Makarios will pay to them. I have no doubt, particularly after my right hon. Friend's intervention, that the Governor, too, will be well able to assess at its proper value the rather tarnished tribute paid to him by the hon. Member. Really, at one stage to go into flowery phraseology, in which the Governor is hailed as one of the greatest men of all time, and then, a few minutes later, by inference through question to suggest that he could be guilty of things of which we all know no British Governor could be guilty, made the tribute rather nauseating.
My understanding, which was rather confirmed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary earlier, was that after all the


debates we have had on the subject we would today concentrate rather on trying to put forward constructive suggestions. That was certainly my understanding of the spirit in which this debate would be conducted, and I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who made a speech which, although naturally critical of the Government, was very much a positive contribution. I suggest that the hon. Member for Swindon might have followed the same policy. Indeed, as one listened, one could not help but feel that in later years, if he writes down his part in these negotiations in Cyprus, we might have another version of some egocentric diaries which we could study with amusement if not serious interest.
We all know that, apart from British interests, the rival claims of Greece and Turkey are the basic elements of this problem, and we have to get those rival claims into a somewhat better perspective than has so far been done today. It is not enough to suggest that because a local population happens to be in a majority in a certain place no other factors should be taken into account at all. I make no party point of that. Economic factors have to be taken into account, and so has geographical adjacency.
What could be more natural than that Turkey, with an island forty miles from her and fronting one of her most valuable ports—almost her only direct outlet to the open sea—should not be more concerned about that than merely about a question of just how many people there are of one race or another on that island? If we were in the Turks' place and were faced with a similar position, I am quite sure that we would take into account the fact that Cyprus was 700 miles from Greece and only 40 miles from our shores and placed in an extremely important strategic position.
In the last few years we have had a very good example of that, when Members on both sides and the forum of international opinion generally have taken the same line. In India after partition there was a small State on the coast called Junagadh which was surrounded, almost like an island by India. Its only contact, other than the sea, was with the Indian hinterland, and one of Mr. Nehru's arguments when that State attempted to accede to Pakistan and he

successfully resisted it was that adjacency had to be taken into account, and that it would be a mistake to permit such action by a little enclave merely because a majority in that enclave might want that action.

Mrs. L. Jeger: Would the hon. Member apply the same argument to Rhodes? Rhodes is even nearer to Turkey than is Cyprus, and it seems to be quite happy under the sovereignty of Greece.

Mr. Bennett: The position there is different, because the problem of the Dodecanese and Rhodes was settled without strife. No one wants to create more trouble spots. We have enough of those on our plate already without trying to seek fresh trouble in Rhodes. All the same, when I was in the Dodecanese I found that there were one or two islands which, due to Italian occupation, were said to have a population with a Greek-Italian majority. The Greeks said that that fact did not justify those islands wanting to join with Italy.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the hon. Member realise that, among the many trouble spots in the world, there is one to which his argument applies almost in every detail? It is an island which is close to the mainland, where there are strategic and economic necessities, and the natural right of a large country to be secure from attack from the small island near its borders. The hon. Member's argument is a very reasonable argument, but could he apply it to the status of Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa?

Mr. Bennett: I do not think, Mr. Duthie, that you would permit me to wander off into the realms of an argument—

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman spoke his words standing up; perhaps I can speak mine standing up and without interruption. I said that I did not think that I would be allowed to enter into a long argument about Formosa, but I have never spoken against the suggestion that, provided it was done by peaceful means, there should be an expression of free opinion there. I do not know of anyone who has gone on record as urging that, if only for the simple reason that it has


not come within the scope of this House to discuss it. The hon. Member, therefore, must not say that I am or am not against a plebiscite in Formosa. So far as I know, such a thing has never come up for consideration here as one of our responsibilities.
My argument applied to Cyprus. I said that factors other than that of a racial majority had to be considered. I only make the plea that the Greek people should be reasonable over this and realise that it is not just a matter of Greek and Turkish nationalist rivalry. The Turks have a genuine reason for interest in the island which goes beyond and outside the question of the exact population make-up. It is for that reason I do not think that any solution permanently lies in the field of partition, or, indeed, in anything outside an autonomous island under the ultimate sovereignty of Britain perhaps—with later on some kind of condominium or triarchy, representing at executive level all three interests involved. I should have thought that, as we were asked for positive contributions—

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERresumed the Chair.

BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL (By Order)

CATTEDOWN WHARVES BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

MARINE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SUNDERLAND CORPORAION BILL (By Order)

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BILL (By Order)

WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

CYPRUS

Question again proposed, That subhead B.I. Cyprus (Grant in aid) be reduced by £100:

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Bennett: As I was saying, I do not think we can look forward to a solution of the problem simply by either a continuance of the present stalemate or, for that matter, by partition. I should have thought that something much more in the nature of an ultimate special autonomous status for the island, with the widest possible freedom for the expression of opinion within the island for self-government, with some kind of representation at Executive level of all the three Powers interested, would provide the ultimate hope.
I have given this matter serious thought, and I myself feel that the only way in which we can go ahead ultimately, when terrorism is crushed, is on these lines: for example, by providing for, perhaps, a British Governor-General and two deputy-Governors, one Turkish and one Greek, with a Legislature which represented fairly the proportions of population in the island. There would, of course, be a Greek Cypriot majority, and there would have to be agreement whereby no constitutional change could take place without the consent of two of the three senior executives. That is only one way. Obviously, I do not pretend to have the means at my disposal to make any very expert analysis; but, as we have been asked to make suggestions for a constructive solution, I would say that it is along those lines rather than in partition, which I cannot help feeling would only lead to an increase in communal bitterness, that our hopes for the future should lie.
It is really up to the Greeks to make the maximum contribution here, I am afraid, because it is the Greeks alone—let us face it—who are maintaining the present state of tension in the island. Certainly, by trying to whip up hatred in the Mediterranean or in the United Nations, they bear a very grave responsibility in harming an old, traditional ally which has often come to their aid in the past. They are trying to stimulate heat and keep the pot boiling, instead of trying to make the positive contribution which it is in their power to make, irrespective of what the Archbishop may do, by condemning violence. The Greeks could make a great contribution in that way, out of which they would be bound to get much more satisfaction in the long run than they will as a result of the present bloodshed and strife, which even if we did give way and went out of Cyprus could only lead them into real trouble and, possibly, into war with Turkey in which they would suffer extremely, whatever might be the ultimate outcome.
Having listened to the speeches from the benches opposite, I must say one really could have been forgiven for thinking this was really a very easy problem to solve. Time after time hon. Gentlemen opposite have attacked the Secretary of State for being reactionary, for being brutal, or for being tyrannous. I cannot even remember all the adjectives hurled at him by the hon. Member for Swindon; I imagine there was practically nothing in the dictionary of abuse which was Parliamentary which he did not include in the course of his speech.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I really must ask the hon. Member to look at HANSARD tomorrow morning and, after reading my speech, to withdraw what he has just said. I said nothing un-Parliamentary and nothing abusive. The fact is that we feel very strongly on this question. We feel that the Government have made a series of calamitous mistakes, and that it is our duty to say so.

Mr. Bennett: I will not try to tell the hon. Gentleman what is or is not his duty; he must work out his duties as he thinks fit. I said, in fact, exactly the opposite of what he has suggested. I said that I believed there was practically nothing abusive in the dictionary, except

those words which were not Parliamentary, which he did not use. Obviously if he had used non-Parliamentary expression he would have been called to order by the Chair in any event.
On this, as on so many other matters of international affairs, there has been an element of playing party politics by those on the benches opposite. I do not by any means say that that applies to all hon. Members opposite, but really, for an Opposition which was so recently in Government, when one considers the line right hon. Gentlemen opposite took when they were in office on this very problem and then listens to their speeches today, one can only draw the conclusion that they have ben playing party politics in what it now taking place.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought out in the course of debate some extremely interesting information as to what had been the attitude of the Labour Government when they had to face this problem. It was not nearly so easy then as they would have the Committee believe now. If it was then so easy, why did we not have these free plebiscites, why was not an opportunity given to opt for Enosis, why were not arrangements made then for all this free expression of opinion and for democracy to take its course, and why was it not made possible for Cyprus to join Greece or do whatever else it is alleged to want?
Let us look back no farther than 1951. On 14th May, 1956, the Secretary of State was speaking about this matter. Although there was an awful lot of fuss afterwards about whether he should or should not have published telegrams, he told the House of Commons that when the Greek Government made representations to the British Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) sitting opposite was a distinguished Member, asking for consideration of the proposal that Cyprus be given an opportunity to opt, if it wished, for Enosis with Greece, this is what happened. My right hon. Friend said:
The answer was that there was no disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government"—
the Socialist Government—
to entertain or discuss the Greek proposals, that the strategic position of Cyprus was of the greatest importance to the United Kingdom, and for that reason alone Her Majesty's


Government could not contemplate a change of sovereignty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1737.]
If that was true in 1951, what has changed since, except the benches upon which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now sit? What has changed to make it so easy now to contemplate a change of sovereignty, which was then ruled absolutely out of court for exactly the same reasons as we now advance in 1957? I hope that any hon. Member from the benches opposite who follows me will seek to give some explanation of this quite dramatic turn-about in Labour views on Cyprus which has occurred since the Labour Government went out of office.
Further to that point, later in the year 1951, when the Greek Government refused to take "No" from the then Labour Government and put in a further request asking for reconsideration at the highest level of their view that the island should be given the opportunity to opt for Enosis if it desired, the answer was, as my right hon. Friend told us on 14th May, 1956:
When further requests were made by a very high authority indeed in Greece, it was decided by the Socialist Government not to make any reply to that demarche."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1741.].
Thus, not only did the Labour Government maintain their negative attitude, but they did not even have the courtesy to send an answer to that communication.
I do not blame them for the difficulties in which they found themselves at that time. They are very similar to the difficulties in which we find ourselves today. What I do say is that, in a serious matter like this, some explanation ought to be given of what amounts to a complete somersault in policy on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite between the time they were in Government and today. Otherwise, we must conclude that nothing more has happened than that they have taken this opportunity to play party politics on what is an extremely serious question.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I had the honour to succeed in this House the father of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), and I wish for that reason that I could say a kind word about the hon. Member's

speech tonight, but, search my heart as I will, I cannot find one. The hon. Member decided that he was holding a position of sufficient eminence to award marks to the speakers on this side of the Committee. He decided to give "very good" to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), while for my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) he was not as kind in his judgment. I should not dream of telling the hon. Member how many marks he earned himself. I think too much of him to let him down in public.
History has a way of repeating itself and it is repeating itself in the matter of Cyprus. In the history of the British people, we have had lesson after lesson that the way to lose the friendship of people is to regard them as though, somehow or another, we have superior rights in their country. It was within my lifetime that a similar policy to that which we now pursue in Cyprus was being pursued in Ireland. For military and strategic reasons, we made such enemies of the Irish people that all over the world there are people who today speak bitterly of us as a result of the misguided policy of the party opposite, who had power at that time.
We ruined the prospect—[Interruption.] We will come to Russia later. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has Russia on the brain.

Mr. Anthony Fell: My intervention was that the Irish all rushed over here to work.

Mr. Thomas: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I withdraw and apologise to him. They come over here to work for very good reasons.
I listened with deep interest to the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), who makes unusual speeches here. I am sorry that he is not now present, but I liked the concluding part of his speech, in which he suggested that we would have to swallow pride and act in humility if we were to have a solution to our present difficulties in Cyprus. The good name of Britain and her influence in world affairs is suffering incalculable damage by the events now taking place in Cyprus.
It is impossible for anyone to travel abroad without learning very quickly of


the utter contempt in which the world holds our policy towards the Cypriot peoples. In the United States of America, from New York to San Francisco, from Maine to Mississippi, people are asking questions about the policy of brutality and repression which we are exercising in that little area, which, I believe, has no more than half a million people.
I am of opinion that there is no military solution to our problems in Cyprus. We are behaving as though, by brute force, we can drive the Cypriot people to accept our point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, in what I regarded as a masterly speech, asked many questions of tile Secretary of State and there are some that I wish to ask also. What are we doing in Cyprus? It is, I believe, 3,000 miles away from here. At least, Russia had the excuse that Hungary was next door when she was—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I am also checking the hon. Member's speech carefully for marks. If he is asking what we are doing in Cyprus, would he like to say what we were doing there between 1945 and 1951?

Mr. Thomas: We were defending ourselves. That was what we were doing then, as we think we are doing now, whereas, in fact, we are not. We are damaging the interests of this country by our presence in Cyprus, and today, when we need friends all over the world, we are making enemies.
What is our aim in Cyprus, and how long do we intend to remain there? Are we intending to stay till we go out, as we went out of Egypt, on our necks? Are we to stay in Cyprus until sufficient terrorism has taken place that we can no longer stay there? This was the basis on which, as the hon. Member well knows, we finally decided that it was intolerable to stay in Egypt where we were not wanted and we decided to come out. The party opposite must not be surprised if Cypriots have learned the lesson that we have taught them from Egypt.
Rather than suffer the odium of the free world and the contempt of the Communist world, we ought entirely to withdraw our forces from Cyprus. I shall come later to what I believe is the solution. At present, Cyprus as a base is negligible, as even some of the militarists, such as Field Marshal Auchlinleck, agree. The hon. Member for Torquay asked what

had changed since 1951. It may be that time has passed him by and that he does not realise the changes that have taken place in military strategy, too. Perhaps he does not realise that Cyprus has lost the significance that it possessed as a military base in 1951. On that argument alone, the hon. Member ought to be prepared to look afresh at the subject.
The international obligations which keep us in Cyprus were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). He referred also to the ill-feeling between Greece and Turkey and Greece and ourselves. This is the direct result of the policy of the party opposite. As far as I can see, no solution is possible as long as the party opposite is in power. We are unlikely to get either the Greeks, the Turks or the Cypriots ever to agree to a formula by a party covered by so much prejudice and with such a record in that part of the world that its word will not be taken. The sooner that that party makes way, the better it will be for the peace of the Middle East.

Mr. Callaghan: And of the world.

Mr. Thomas: And of the world, as my hon. Friend says.
As for our interests in the Middle East, the hon. Member for Torquay will know what his party has done to our interests there. They have disappeared like sugar in tea. I suppose they are somewhere, but they are not in the Middle East. Our trade has disappeared. At least, where there is friendship there is a possibility of trade, but we are today handicapping ourselves in every way. We are taking boys from industry in Britain against their will to send them out there for a policy of which they disapprove and at the same time we are damaging the economic interests of these islands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, in his speech this afternoon, to which I have already referred without giving marks—

Mr. Callaghan: I had nine out of ten.

Mr. Thomas: No. The hon. Member for Torquay gave my hon. Friend only five out of ten.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Ten out of ten.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East referred


to the Archbishop. I ask the Secretary of State: is he going to tell us the old, old story tonight? Has he nothing new to say about the Archbishop? Is he going to leave the Archbishop in the Seychelles? How long is the Archbishop to stay there? Until we are strong enough to reach a conclusion by military might?
Every time there is a debate on Cyprus we hear the same story, that terrorism is on the point of disappearing. It is like prosperity: it is round the corner. It is said to be on its way out. I say to the Under-Secretary of State that he must offer us a more substantial statement of the grounds for his confidence that terrorism is about to be stamped out.

Mr. Profumo: I really must put the hon. Gentleman right. I did not say it is about to be stamped out. I was very careful to say that, although the Observer had given us some hope that, perhaps, the tide was on the turn, I did not think that terroism was by any means finished and that there was still a good deal of kick in it. I gave factual information about what had happened. I was careful to say that I did not think that we could regard terrorism as being finished yet.

Mr. Thomas: That is a very sad and depressing reply which the Under-Secretary of State makes. He may as well bring the Archbishop back. At least, he would be nearer to talk to, if he were back in Cyprus. Who believes that he is not the respected and much loved leader of his people? It is strange that there are Archbishops in two troubled spots, Mindszenty in Hungary, speaking for his people, and Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus. Who is to say that they are not both great patriots? One is a nuisance to us and the other was a challenge to the Communists.

Major Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that Cardinal Mindszenty speaks on religious grounds, whereas the Archbishop of Cyprus speaks on political grounds?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is living in a world of his own if he thinks that Cardinal Mindszenty is not concerned with politics as well as religion. He very much is so, as he has made clear, because he is dealing in politics when he deals with Communism,

as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be well aware.
I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the growing impatience in this nation because our good name is being smirched as it is. The day when we could behave as a big imperial Power pushing little people around if they got in our way has gone. After all, Cyprus is not our country. It is far enough away from us. It is half-way to the other side of the world. It is an impertinence for us to think that merely by sending the British Army there we can decide the future of Cyprus.
There is the problem of the Turks. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for his analogy of Formosa, off the coast of China. The United Nations does not feel that that ought to be handed over to China. We are using Turkey, I feel, stirring up her fears to buttress our position in Cyprus. The Government have undoubtedly made up their mind that any old argument will do as long as we stay in Cyprus. They should realise that the time is coming when they will have to get out of Cyprus. When we get out of a country we like to think that we leave behind a form of democratic government. How can this be done? We shall not do it by the present policy. What does it entail? It means that British boys and Cypriots are dying. That is not a policy. That is disaster.

Mr. Fell: Nor are we going to do it by leaving the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots to murder one another.

Mr. Thomas: When the party opposite took over the Government the Greeks and Turks in Cyprus were not killing one another. There was a demand for Enosis, but there was not this campaign.

Mr. S. Silverman: The argument which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has just put has been put repeatedly since 1945, and was put, indeed, before that, about Palestine and whether we ought not to stay there to prevent the Jews and Arabs from murdering one another.

Mr. Thomas: I believe that it is not right for this Committee to put British conscripts in such jeopardy in defending


a policy they regard as wrong. We know that young soldiers object strongly to it, yet they are sent there by a Government whose feeble grip on events is condemned at home and ridiculed abroad. We ought to learn the elementary lesson of the Suez fiasco. We ought to stop pretending that we are a big imperial Power. Let N.A.T.O. decide, if it will, about its bases, but let us not talk and behave as though we are N.A.T.O. In view of recent events, we need a major reassessment of our rôle in overseas affairs. The Government are not making friends, but making enemies.
I believe that there are no unimportant people in the world, and I think that the Cypriots have to be treated as our equals in this matter. We are unable to reach the solution of the Cyprus problem ourselves, and we ought to seek outside arbitration. Why not let the United Nations have this problem to deal with? It need not take long. Let the world's conscience tackle this problem. One thing is sure: we are not going to solve it, any more than we solved the problem of Ireland, by violence alone. We shall create a legacy of hostility and bitterness for future generations if the current policy is not reversed. We are already weak enough in the world. That weakness has been exposed by the party opposite, and it has been exposed by events in the Middle East.
I beg the Government, in the name of those who have to be protected by us, the next generation, to show our readiness to accept outside opinion on this question, and our willingness to withdraw our military forces, so that the United Nations forces may go there while a decision is being reached. That need not take a long time. It could be done quickly, and I think it ought.

7.29 p.m.

Major Patrick Wall: We spoke of awarding marks a little while ago, but I am afraid I cannot award many to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and I will tell him why, because he has not mentioned, nor indeed did the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), the Radcliffe Constitution. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Swindon, who is now leaving the Chamber, was completely unconstructive and unrelated to the facts as they now

are. So was the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, and that is why I suggest they cannot be awarded any marks.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that the Cypriots do not want us. I wonder if that is true. Certainly the Turkish Cypriots want us. I know that they are in the minority, but neither he nor I nor anybody else can say whether the Cypriots want us—or want to remain in the Commonwealth, which is the important thing—until terrorism is finished and they have a legislative assembly able to express their point of view.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West also suggested that the British Government were using Turkey in the same way as the hon. Member for Swindon seemed to suggest that the Secretary of State was using the Field Marshal. That is to put a very low estimate on the value or integrity of Turkey or the Field Marshal—to suggest that they could be used for matters of which they do not approve by foreign Governments.
I am pleased that I have been called after the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, because I think his speech illustrates the difficulty we are up against on this side of the Committee, that is, to decide what exactly is the policy of the Opposition in regard to Cyprus. If I may digress for a moment, in the spring of last year there were a lot of stories in the papers to the effect that certain hon. Members of the party opposite had decided to end bipartisanship in foreign affairs. How true that was I am not going to discuss, but one of the results of that undoubtedly was the Suez incident, which, whatever may be said about its success or failure, certainly did not do the country any good.
I suggest, and I believe that I carry the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee with me, that as far as possible we should keep bipartisanship in colonial affairs. I really did believe after the very statesmanlike speech of the hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition and from the speeches of other hon. Members who have spoken from those benches that this was going to be the best debate on Cyprus we have had. We have had eight debates on Cyprus in the last eighteen months, and at last we seemed to get a common measure of agreement between the two sides of the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: I am bound to say that the whole of my speech was directed to indicating that the Government would have to reverse their policy both in regard to Archbishop Makarios and in relation to their strategic appreciation of Cyprus, and would, in fact, have to come to terms.

Major Wall: Yes, I agree, but the hon. Member surely agrees that the constitutional proposals for Cyprus are fundamental. The hon. Gentleman did indicate that he thought the Radcliffe proposals could be the basis of a solution. I believe that a large majority of hon. Members on this side agree. Surely, we must try to find a common basis on Lord Radcliffe's proposals, and that point is to be the burden of the rest of my speech.
I should like to try to find out exactly what is the point of view of the Opposition, because they have had so many different ones. May I quote some of the alternatives? We have had certain hon. Gentlemen opposite saying, or appearing to say, that we should regard Archbishop Makarios and E.O.K.A. as representative of Cyprus, and that they would concede Enosis and let Cyprus join Greece. Surely, they realise that the Turks could not possibly tolerate any such thing, and that they have said so repeatedly on the highest level?
I really must ask hon. Members who express that desire to face the facts. If they mean anything like that, we have to face the fact that, although the Turks are in a minority, they are only forty miles from the Turkish coast, that they have a very good reputation as fighters and that a civil war will be the result. I think we should get much the same sort of happenings as occurred in Palestine. I am one of the people who believes that the British withdrawal from Palestine was the action that started the whole of the troubles of the Middle East from which we are suffering today, and I suggest that if we try to do the same thing in Cyprus, we should only repeat that situation and so involve the Greeks and Turks in hostilities, the break-up of N.A.T.O. and, possibly, the start of a third world war in that part of the world.
There is one other point I must put to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They must remember that although the Turks represent only 20 per cent. of the population, they own 40 per cent. of the privately-

owned land in Cyprus. A man fights very hard for his own land, and I do not really believe that hon. Members opposite really believe this to be a possible solution to the present situation.
Let me now turn to the next alternative. It is the one which I understood was brought forward by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in a recent debate on Cyprus. I understood him in that debate to say that there should be self-determination in Cyprus in about five years' time. That was what I understood the general tenor of his remarks to be. I believe that that solution would give the worst of all worlds, because obviously no one would obey or support the Government, because both sides, including Greece and Turkey, would be preparing for the hostilities which they knew would break out. The only people who could possibly benefit from that alternative of self-determination in five years would be the 60 per cent. Greek Cypriots who are already affiliated to or members of the Communist party, who are working in very close association with the large Communist party in Greece, which is pledged to bring about "democratic government" in Greece. Indeed, the Communist mayor of a Cyprus town told me that when they had achieved self-determination in Cyprus the majority of the Greek Cypriot communists there, added to those in Greece, would give them "democratic government" in Mother Greece. That is exactly what Turkey fears.
It has been pointed out from the benches opposite today that Turkey could not tolerate Communist control of an island off her southern shore, when she is faced by Russia in the north and Greece in the west, and I suggest that the only result of that alternative of self-determination in five years would be an increase of that Communal unrest which we all deplore.
What, then, are we faced with? I think there are only two other alternatives to consider. One is the Radcliffe Constitution and the other is partition. Before I take up those two points, I should like to digress for a moment, and say that one of the main reasons holding up a solution of the Cyprus problem is the fact that we have not got, or do not


appear to have, any measure of agreement between both sides of this Chamber. The Cypriots quite rightly think that if they back the Radcliffe Constitution and self-government and there is a change in the government of this country in a few years' time—I do not think there will be, but if there is—then, as far as they can see at the moment, Cyprus will be handed over to Greece and they will be labelled as traitors to Greece, blacklegs or what you like.
We cannot expect any Cypriot who thinks that hon. Members of the party opposite are advocating Enosis—and the majority of them do, rightly or wrongly—can possibly come forward now, with a fear of terrorism on the one hand and the possibility of a change of Government here on the other, to advocate a reasonable, constructive approach to the future government of the island. Unfortunately, it is the more extreme statements in this House and elsewhere that hit the headlines in the Press abroad, and, indeed, in this country.
Some while ago, I was in the island about the same time as, and again a little later than, the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). There was a big flap on at the time, because the hon. Member for Coventry, East had had a meeting with the mayor of the village of Kythrea, and in this conversation he was alleged to have said certain things. I will just quote a question which he was alleged to have asked by a person present there, and I will not say whether it was right or wrong. I have informed the hon. Member for Coventry, East that I was going to do this, but I understand that he cannot be present this evening because he has to be somewhere else, and I told him that I should put this point of view, when I had put my own. I am going to quote the words he is alleged to have said. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman, but merely trying to show that this is the kind of thing that hits the headlines in the Press, and that we shall not get stability in Cyprus while this fighting goes on between the two sides of this House over colonial policy. The hon. Member for Coventry, East was reported to have said to the mayor:
Mr. Mayor, it is a historical fact that the once colonial peoples of India, Egypt and Palestine only achieved their freedom by resorting to violence. It was only after they started shooting and throwing bombs that the

British withdrew and gave them their freedom. Why, during the 80 years of British rule, have not the Cypriots also resorted to violence?

The statement was quoted in the Press as follows:—" The hon. Member observed that many people in England said that the Iraqi people, the Jews, the Egyptians and other peoples had not confined themselves to words in their struggle for freedom but had resorted to violence". He was alleged to have added that the same did not apply to the Cypriots and to have asked why. The hon. Member has informed me that when he learned of this report in the Cyprus Press he issued a denial to the newspapers in Cyprus, and that the whole thing had been taken out of its context and that it had been made to appear that he advocated violence.
It is not in order to attack the hon. Member that I bring this matter forward, because we know that things can be taken out of their context, but to show how the rather extreme views sometimes expressed in Cyprus or in the House of Commons on both sides are headlined and create the wrong impression. I have been in Cyprus many times, and my own impression was that people thought that the hon. Member had said that if they wanted self-determination they had better do something positive about it. I suggest that that is a very dangerous impression to give.
I come now to something more constructive and wish to discuss very briefly the proposals on which I believe the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee can find a common basis for the future, namely, the Radcliffe proposals for a new Constitution. It gives the Greek Cypriots a majority in the Assembly of 24 to 6 Turks and 6 nominated members. That is an overwhelming majority. Admittedly, Lord Radcliffe suggests safeguards on foreign affairs, defence and security to be in the hands of the Governor, but surely this is a liberal constitution. The Government could have been accused of being illiberal if they had given the nominated members and the Turks a majority over the Greeks. Surely, the object is to get the Cypriot people to govern themselves and to practise the arts of government and then, when they have done so and have accepted the Constitution and finished terrorism, they can decide their own future.
Why has this Constitution been rejected by the Greeks? Greece has said that she believes in self-determination for Cyprus. She says that she is not fighting to get Cyprus annexed to Mother Greece. If she was sincere in that statement she must have supported the Radcliffe proposals, because they are based on self-government and later self-determination on the island. I suggest that the reason is that the whole of the modern history of Greece is based on the idea of re-creating the old Byzantine Empire, for example, the Ionian Islands, Crete, Corfu, Rhodes, Cyprus and later parts of Turkey. If hon. Members will study the history books they will see that there is a certain amount of proof for that suggestion.
The Turks have been given safeguards in the Constitution. They are to have their own Minister and there are other safeguards to be operated by the Governor. As far as we can see, both Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots, though naturally not enthusiastic, would agree that these proposals would form a good basis for a future Constitution. We must pay tribute to the leader of the Cypriot Turks, Dr. Kutchuk, for keeping his sometimes aggressive countrymen in the island in order, and I would say the same as the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) has said of the leaders of the Greek Cypriot community.
We must not forget the British community there. It is not large but it is very important in the commercial life of Cyprus. At the moment these people are protected from paying double Income Tax. Could that be altered and could they be required to pay both Income Taxes here and in Cyprus if the Constitution were altered? They also wonder whether under the new Constitution the elected Assembly could take Cyprus outside the sterling area and ally the currency to the drachma as a step towards Enosis. They also note that although English is prescribed as one of the three languages in the Assembly, it is not definitely specified in the proposals as one of the three universal languages for the island. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some reassurances on those three points.
I believe that the White Paper on the new Constitution is a foundation for the

future. I believe that the majority of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could come to an agreement on that basis. I believe that that is the only really firm future for the island of Cyprus. Whatever our political ideas may be, I am sure that all of us sincerely want a good future for Cyprus and would like to see her remain in the Commonwealth.
The only alternative to these proposals is partition, and nobody wants it. I am certain that that is true of both sides of the Committee, but if we cannot agree on the basis of the Radcliffe Constitution, and if terrorism and violence continue, then there is no other alternative. Therefore, I should like to make one or two points on partition to my right hon. Friend.
If we are forced to adopt partition, I suggest that the island should be divided into three sectors. The northeastern corner—the "panhandle"— should be Turkish, the centre, including the area between Nicosia and Famagusta, should be British and the remainder of the island should be Greek. Nicosia should remain a federal capital for ten years and there should be a federal Government of the three sectors, composed of Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and British, but after ten years the Turkish and Greek sectors could opt for Enosis with their separate countries, Turkey and Greece.
During the ten years the island's budget would be divided among the sectors but British colonial funds would be concentrated on the British sector. That would mean that an island of the size of the Isle of Wight would be divided into three. Nobody likes that, but it provides a possible alternative, a better alternative than the continuation of the present conditions, and the only alternative to the Radcliffe proposals.
I therefore beg hon. Members throughout the Committee to support, as far as they possibly can do so in their consciences, the proposals of Lord Radcliffe, because I believe that what goes forth from this Chamber today will have great effect on the future of Cyprus. If it can be said that at last Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition have found a certain measure of agreement, I believe that the people in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey will feel that at last there


is some possibility of a solution of this problem which has troubled us all for so long.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: In debate after debate on Cyprus in the House and in Committee we, on this side, have been accused by hon. Members opposite of giving comfort and succour to terrorists because we venture to criticise, often in rather sharp terms, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in that island. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) was no exception in that respect.
This charge we have answered time and time again. I repeat that we cannot be deflected from what we believe to be our Parliamentary duty in criticising the Government because of the possibility that certain people in Cyprus may take comfort from our words. But it does not seem to have been said that very much the same charge can be made against hon. Members opposite, who say over and over again that if self-determination is given to Cyprus the result inevitably will be communal rioting between Turk and Greek.
If that is not stimulating communal feeling, I do not know what is. And this was' said not only by the hon. and gallant Member but by the Under-Secretary of State, in opening the debate from the other side this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman painted a lurid picture of the situation that would follow the granting of self-determination to Cyprus.

Major Wall: Could I ask exactly what the hon. Gentleman means by self-determination? I had Enosis in mind in painting that picture of civil war, not self-determination, which could be different.

Mr. Robinson: I agree that it could be different, but we all agree that Enosis is the probable outcome of self-determination, so the point I am making holds good.
As I have said, the Under-Secretary of State painted a picture of murder and of communal rioting and of civil war between Greek and Turk which would inevitably follow. There is no doubt that this is part of the policy of stimulating Turkish intransigence, which made its appearance seriously for the first time on

the occasion of the London Conference in October, 1955.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: For the record, did the hon. Gentleman say "stimulating" or "stimulated", because there is a great difference? Was he suggesting that someone had been stimulating it or that it had been stimulated, not from this country?

Mr. Robinson: I said that remarks of this kind inevitably stimulated Turkish intransigence. While we are on the subject of Turkish intransigence I would like to say that the recent communal rioting in Cyprus is, thank heaven, an exceptional feature of this tragic story. I do not think that anyone in this Committee ought to forget that for most of the last two wretched years in Cyprus, Greek and Turk have lived together in reasonable peace side by side, as, indeed, they have done in Greece and in Turkey almost without a break for the last twenty-five years. It is the most tragic new development in this situation that the dragging out of this problem in Cyprus has given rise to communal strife.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the use of Turkish police. There is a statement in an article, which I shall have occasion to quote in another connection a little later, in the current number of the Spectator. The quotation is as follows:
The administration in Cyprus is employing no fewer than 3,000 Turkish auxiliary constables to patrol; many of these men are quite unfitted for their choice as guardians of law and order. Unemployed at the outbreak of the emergency, a number of them are convicted felons.
It continues:
The present Chief Constable, Colonel White, promised to weed out this unsuitable material as soon as he was appointed, but nothing has been done.
I would like to have the comments of the right hon. Gentleman on that, because it is clear that it must be an exacerbating factor, to put it no higher, in the communal situation if Turkish police of this character are being used on patrol work in the Greek Cypriot areas.
I must confess to a feeling of despair when I learned that the right hon. Gentleman was to wind up this debate. We have had this situation in all too many colonial debates. It means that we get another exhibition of the technique which I have had occasion to describe in the House of Commons before, of the right hon.
Gentleman galloping through his brief, answering a few selected points made in the course of the debate, and sitting down breathless and exhausted like the rest of us.
It also means that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing new to tell us. However, on an occasion like this—and this is a censure debate—we are entitled to have a statement of policy from the senior Minister in charge at the beginning of it. I must add, here, that I thought that the speech of the Under-Secretary was totally inadequate. After a reasoned case has been made, as was made this afternoon by my hon Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), it is not good enough for the opening speaker for the Government merely to come along with a prepared brief and reel out a few items of recent history in connection with Cyprus and be unable to answer the substantial points made.
He also suggested that moving a reduction in the Vote was merely a method of staging a debate on Cyprus, and that there was not too wide a division between the two sides of the Committee.
But if Her Majesty's Government will not move one inch forward on their policy, it is not good enough to suggest that the two sides of the House of Commons are coming closer together on the issue in Cyprus. Several hon. Members have fallen into that error this afternoon. Our policy has been made abundantly clear time and time again, and there will be no coming together unless the Government show signs of reversing the tragic policy they have been following for so long.
I had intended to say something about the question of Cyprus as a base. I propose to say very much less than I had intended because my hon. Friend, in opening this debate, dealt with that aspect of the matter so admirably and so cogently. However, I will say this much for the Secretary of State—that I believe that if he had been faced with this problem in Cyprus as a purely political colonial problem he would have found a solution long before this. I agree with my hon. Friend that the whole of the Cyprus matter has been bedevilled by the strategic interests involved in it. The trouble is that we have felt it necessary

to retain the whole of the island as a base for the defence of British interests in the Middle East.
I have never been wholly satisfied with any of the arguments put forward against the use of Cyprus as a N.A.T.O. base. Indeed, I once went on a small Parliamentary delegation to N.A.T.O. Headquarters. In the course of the lecture which we were given by the then Supreme Commander, the usual number of N.A.T.O. maps were pulled down. One of them was a map of Europe and the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, showing the N.A.T.O. area. The line bounding the N.A.T.O. area came down from Turkey, had a little kink inwards to exclude Cyprus, and then continued downwards, including Crete.
I asked a fairly innocent question: why Cyprus, which naturally came into the area of N.A.T.O., was so carefully excluded? I was told that it had been excluded at the specific request of the British Government. I was prepared to accept that statement, because the authority for it was no less than General Gruenther himself. It seemed that Her Majesty's Government required the whole of the island of Cyprus for this British base, and that is what this problem has been all about. That is why we have equivocated and procrastinated all along the line.
How fatuous these arguments look since the Suez operation. My hon. Friend pointed out the lessons that we must draw from Suez. First, it has proved that Cyprus is no use as a base even for the limited kind of military operation that was launched against Egypt. I ask the right hon. Gentleman when it was decided by the defence experts that Cyprus was of such value as a military base? Was it not a fact that, ten years ago, an appraisal was made of the island for military purposes by the then military experts, and that the reply was that it was virtually useless?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Then the hon. Gentleman might perhaps inquire of his own colleagues, who formed the Government of that day and who made emphatic statements in the House of Commons to the effect that a change of sovereignty was out of the question, and no doubt did that on the basis of the advice they had received.

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that it was ever said that a change of sovereignty could not be contemplated because of strategic reasons, but if it gives any comfort to the right hon. Gentleman I gladly say that I think that the policy of the Labour Government at that time was mistaken.
The second lesson from the Suez operation is that we shall never again launch the kind of aggression, or police action, single-handed, outside the United Nations, that we launched against Egypt.

Major Wall: I understood that it was always said that Cyprus was to be a command centre and perhaps an aircraft carrier. Whatever the success or failure of the military operation in Suez was, Cyprus performed exactly that function and was extremely useful.

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that any operations were conducted from Cyprus which could not have been conducted from Malta. I am not putting myself forward as an expert on strategy. I am trying to put forward the lessons which a layman might learn from what has happened in recent months.
Cannot the Government digest these lessons? How long will it take them to do so? This is not the view only of the Opposition. A leading article in The Times yesterday said:
The Suez crisis, and Britain's reappraisal of her defence needs, must certainly lead to a reappraisal of her needs in Cyprus. It could be that Britain's own strategic stake in the island became less important, but that of N.A.T.O. remained unaffected.
I believe that if only this idea of the value of Cyprus from the strategic angle can be removed from the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is a possibility of their looking afresh at the Cyprus problem, no longer blinded by strategic assumptions which never were valid and have now been proved invalid in the eyes of the world.
We have heard references at some length to the Radcliffe Constitution. I said a few words on this subject in an Adjournment debate the day the House rose for the Christmas Recess. I was taken to task by the then Minister of State, because I was not more enthusiastic about the Constitution. However, I went as far as to say that I hoped, subject to certain conditions, that the

Greek Cypriots would agree to work it and give it a chance. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that not many people have gone as far as that.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely disappointed at the reception which the Radcliffe Constitution has received, but he ought not to be very surprised, because whatever chances those constitutional proposals had were virtually destroyed by his ridiculous talk about partition. I do not think that the Secretary of State need have offered partition to the Turks in order to get their support for the Radcliffe Constitution. The safeguards for the Turks built into the proposals are perfectly adequate. By talking of partition in the same breath as he talked about the Constitution, he injected yet another powerful irritant into an already inflamed situation.
In today's debate not one hon. Member on either side of the Committee has had a good word for partition. Those who have accepted it at all have only accepted it as a last resort. The least we can ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to withdraw what he said about partition and tell the Committee that it no longer forms part of Her Majesty's Government's policy, or possible policy, for the future of Cyprus. Until he does that, it is impossible for the Radcliffe Constitution to be looked at objectively by those who will be most closely affected.
In the meantime, the bloodshed goes on and the repression in Cyprus continues. Indeed, it is intensifying in some respects. The Governor appears to have embarked upon a feud against the Cyprus Press. We had occasion to call the attention of the House to the new Press regulations before Christmas. Some modifications were made to them, but they were not very significant.
Now we have the spectacle of one of the two English-speaking newspapers in Cyprus having received a letter from the Governor, or the Assistant Governor, threatening to suspend publication, which means that that newspaper can now be shut down at a moment's notice without any reason whatever being given. I have with me a file of cuttings from The Times of Cyprus, dealing with the matters which have given rise to this threat from the


Governor about shutting down the newspaper. They are too voluminous for me to quote, but I wish to quote an article in the Spectator which I think, having read the extracts from The Times of Cyprus, gives a fair summary of what the newspaper is alleged to have done to justify the threat being made.
The Spectator says:
For the last two weeks Mr. Foley has been publishing daily articles warning the Government of the danger of allowing Greco-Turk relations to flare in to a forest fire.
The article describes how communal rioting took place and how dangerous incidents occurred. It goes on:
Again 'The Times of Cyprus' stepped into the breach, taking up an idea which had just been mooted that the Greek and Turkish leaders should form a mixed commission to find out who was responsible for these acts of inter-communal violence and to propose ways of relieving tension.… The Greek leaders were prepared to use all their influence to persuade E.O.K.A. to stop the attacks on the police—this would have been the first time they had spoken up against E.O.K.A. The moderate Turks agreed to the idea of a mixed commission; even, after much persuasion. Dr. Kutchuk, leader of the extreme 'Cyprus is Turkish' Party, agreed. And then, twenty-four hours later, Dr. Kutchuk changed his mind and withdrew. When 'The Times of Cyprus' published an article criticising Dr. Kutchuk, Mr. Foley received a letter from the administration threatening to close the newspaper.
These are totalitarian methods. I do not think that anyone who has consistently read The Times of Cyprus could deny that Mr. Foley's contribution has been at all times a beneficial one and that he has done his best to mitigate the more unpleasant aspects of the situation in Cyprus as between both Greek and Turk, and between the Cypriot people and the Government. I hope that this threat will not be held over him indefinitely. I do not know what the position is. Does it mean that if the letter is not withdrawn he will have this Sword of Damocles hanging indefinitely over his head? I hope that the Colonial Secretary will say a word about this.
I also want to refer to the attack which has been made on the Cyprus Bar. This follows the formation by the Cyprus Bar Council of a Human Rights Commission in October last. It was designed to investigate complaints of ill-treatment of persons during interrogation and damage to property during searches. Now we find that one of the most distinguished

Cypriot lawyers, Mr. George Polyviou, has been arrested. Charges have been made against a number of lawyers in Famagusta, including the mayor. Today, we have in the Manchester Guardian an article quoting a number of cases of alleged ill-treatment which have not received the thorough investigation to which I feel the right hon. Gentleman will agree they are entitled.
A brief reference was made to the case of Maria Lambrou. The Committee should know what is alleged in this case. I have no doubt that it is one of the cases to which the Colonial Secretary will refer. This was a young Cypriot woman who was arrested on 13th October, a few days before her fiance was injured in a bomb-throwing incident. It is alleged that she was punched on the nose when she was being asked if she would tell the whereabouts of Colonel Grivas. She was then threatened, according to the account, "If you do not confess, I will cause a miscarriage of your child", because it was obvious that she was pregnant.
This young woman claims that she was punched again on subsequent occasions, and the following day she had, in fact, a miscarriage. According to this article, which is written by a very reputable lawyer, the most cursory examination of the charges was made, and the complaint was dismissed by the Administration on the ground that no case had been established against any public officer. A request for the name of the man who interrogated this woman was refused.
It was also said that no action could be taken because she had not complained to the police at the time, although we are assured that she complained to a police constable, whose number was given, after receiving legal advice within one week of the incident. Other cases are quoted. There is the case of a man who sustained two broken ribs and other injuries. A case was brought following that incident and dismissed by the judge.
Then we have the new Emergency Regulation, which we referred to before Christmas, by which it is forbidden to institute private prosecutions against members of the security forces, except with the permission of the Attorney-General. That seems to me to be a quite intolerable situation. No one is saying that cruel treatment of prisoners who are


being questioned is a regular practice. What we do say is that there must be no suggestion whatever of "covering up".
If cases like these are not properly investigated, and if power and influence of the Attorney-General is used to prevent prosecutions against members of the security forces, then people all over the world will draw the most sinister conclusions. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will announce that, at any rate, this Emergency Regulation governing prosecutions against the security forces will be withdrawn.
I want to make a very brief reference to the debate that is going on in the Political Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Under-Secretary sounded very confident that the British motion would get the support of the Assembly. I am not so concerned about that. But we did seek to exclude this problem from the United Nations for about two years. It was only when it was quite obvious that our attempts would not be successful that we changed our ground and ourselves tabled a motion attempting to put Greece in the dock.
What I want to ask about is the Greek second draft motion, which seems to me to be a very reasonable one. This asked the Assembly to set up a seven-nation fact-finding committee to investigate British charges of Cypriot terrorism and Greek counter allegations. I hope that the British delegate at the United Nations will vote for that and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what is the Government's attitude to this extremely reasonable proposal of getting an independent, seven-nation inquiry into the charges brought by both sides.
In conclusion, I want only to say what I have said before here, that the Government will have to swallow their pride in this matter of Archbishop Makarios. They will not get a solution of this problem unless they are prepared to discuss the situation with the Archbishop. It has been made abundantly clear that there is no one else who carries the support and respect of the Greek Cypriot people. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Colonial Secretary will realise that and agree to bring the Archbishop to London, or anywhere else that is mutually agree-

able, for discussions about the future of the island.
The Under-Secretary said that the Archbishop had refused to discuss the future of Cyprus under present conditions. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary could tell us what was meant by "under present conditions". I assume—and I should like to know whether I am right—that he will not discuss the future of Cyprus while he is exiled in the Seychelles. I think that that is not unreasonable. We ask the Government to think again about this matter and to see in Archbishop Makarios, whatever they may think about his association with E.O.K.A., the only key to the problem. If they cannot swallow their pride in this matter, we must reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Government are not capable of solving the Cyprus problem.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I disagree with almost everything that was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. K. Robinson), except that partition does not provide a very acceptable solution to this problem. I would not urge my right hon. Friend, as he would, to dismiss it entirely, because we cannot see the end of the Cyprus problem. The end is not in sight. Therefore, it would be unwise, in my view, to rule out any of the possibilities to which we may have to resort in the ultimate. I agree that I should not like to see it if no other choice was before us.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman very materially on the question of the military appreciation. He spoke as if it had been decided that as Cyprus no longer had the military value once attached to it—I do not know whether that is correct or not we were relieved of all our responsibility for the citizens of the island.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to correct that impression. I said that once this strategic concept was out of the way, hon. Members might be able to think straight about the problem.

Mr. Shepherd: That may be the party slant which the hon. Gentleman is now giving to his remarks, but I took the view that he thought that our responsibility for Cyprus and its people was less important than its military value to us.
That is certainly not a view that I would share with him.
When we come to the question of "thinking straight," as the hon. Gentleman calls it, I think that it would be wise of us to try to think straight on these issues. There has been some extraordinarily distorted thinking here this afternoon. Let us take, for instance, the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), which was a vicious and unhelpful speech, not generated in the heat of the moment but conned over while burning the midnight oil. He was trying to do as much damage as he could to the relationship between this country and Greece. I hope that on reflection, when he reads his speech, the hon. Member will realise how undesirable it was.
I agree with hon. Members opposite who say that there may be some wrong thinking on the Right in this country. There is also a great deal of wrong thinking on the Left. There are those on the Right who see every change of status of other nations with whom we have had some association or over whom we have had dominion as a disaster. That is an old-fashioned, useless and outmoded concept. I also see in the expressions of opinion of many hon. Members opposite and many people on the Left the idea that everything that is done by a British Government not of their own choosing is old-fashioned colonialism. That is not really true.
What I would plead for is a measured view between those two extremes. I, for one, am very proud of what my right hon. Friend has done since he has been Colonial Secretary. I am also proud of what his predecessor, Lord Chandos, did. Our record in colonial affairs stands almost any examination. I am not prepared to say that we have not made mistakes. I am sure that we have and that we shall go on making them, but our record is as proud as that of any other colonial Power in the history of the world.
It is grossly unfair to make allegations, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon did, about nineteenth century colonialism concerning the actions of my right hon. Friend or those of his predecessor, because I think that we have a record that is enlightened and of which we can be

proud. Even when we come to the government of the Colonial Territories it is true that of all our colonial legislatures over two-thirds of them have a majority of native representatives. We have nothing to fear on the question of the way in which we have carried out our obligations and duties as a colonial Power.
There has been a reference to allegations of cruelty by members of the security forces in Cyprus. Some of those allegations have been made recklessly, and we know how recklessly allegations can be made in this matter. We have had one or two unpleasant examples in the last twelve months of accusations, made by seemingly responsible people, which have had little or no foundation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be reticent about giving currency to allegations until they are fully satisfied that they have a foundation in fact.
We should be as ruthless with those who do not maintain decent standards in our service in Cyprus and elsewhere as with the terrorists. There should be no offences in our name and nothing of which we could be ashamed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that any case where there is good evidence of maltreatment of prisoners will be dealt with with the utmost rigour of the law so that justice is satisfied. Nothing could be more salutary than the action of Judge Bernard Shaw—no relation, I think—who dismissed a prosecution. In view of the misconceived idea which was heard in the Committee a little earlier, I want to draw attention to the reason he dismissed that prosecution. He did so because, he said, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that a statement was obtained voluntarily.
It is a most terrific sanction against the use of force in obtaining statements for a judge to say that unless he is fully satisfied that a statement has been made voluntarily, and the prosecution can prove that it has been made voluntarily, he will not accept the statement as evidence. I was very much relieved that Judge Shaw should have made that declaration.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the hon. Member relieved that in this case the Crown was unable to prove that the confession had been made voluntarily?

Mr. Shepherd: I am not and I think that my right hon. Friend will probably institute some inquiries about the reasons for the refusal to bring forward the evidence in question.
There have been many accusations against various individuals, but we can be very proud of what has been done by policemen from this country who have gone to Cyprus. There is no doubt that their high standard of conduct has had a very marked effect on the morale of the police force, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish.
I want to deal with one or two aspects of the political situation in Cyprus. I do not accept the view of hon. Members opposite. I do not want, at this stage, to trade with Makarios. I believe that he is an evil man, with blood on his hands, and I do not want to see us forced by circumstances to trade with him. It is not necessary, either for the future of the island, or for our own position, to deal with him at this juncture. We have one clear duty as a Power there, to preserve law and order. All our efforts ought to be devoted to ending terrorism. That is the only immediate duty which the Government ought to perform.
It is a good thing that we have brought forward for discussion the admirable proposals of the Radcliffe Commission. The primary duty of the Government is to restore law and order and end terrorism. We shall not be facing the future—and those who, in the future, will consider our actions—with any degree of pride if it can be said of us that we were forced to take a line because we feared terrorism. The first essential of our policy ought to be the ending of terrorism, and we are very near to doing so.
When Sir John Harding was here, he said that he hoped by Christmas to have a virtual end to terrorism, and the end is not far away. The terrorists are on the run and we should stick to the ending of terrorism as the prime duty which we have to perform as the colonial Power in Cyprus. I do not believe for one moment that we can end with that. We want to go beyond the ending of terrorism, but we can think in terms of a future policy only when we have ended terrorism, because while it persists we cannot see into the future with any degree of clarity. If we carry on and end the terrorism we will see moderate Greek

Cypriot opinion formulated. We might well weaken the power of this evil man Makarios.
It may be that if we end terrorism and bring back some normality to the life of the island, moderate Greek Cypriot opinion will assert itself. Some views on the Radcliffe Constitution may well be expressed and in a relatively short time we may put ourselves in a position where Makarios no longer has the power for evil which I think he has. I should not like to think that we are dependent on Makarios for the future of the island. I strongly oppose the suggestion that we should weaken our policy in any way. We should stand firm against Makarios, firm for those things which we believe to be right.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees with me in the view that union with Greece at this juncture is not a policy which we can tolerate in any circumstances. We must stand against any policy which would lead us foolishly in that direction. I do not want union with Greece for reasons which are not necessarily connected with the prestige of this country. I look upon union with Greece in terms of the damage which it will do to the ordinary Greek Cypriot.
We must remember the advantages which the Greek Cypriot has over his less fortunate brothers in Greece. There is the advantage of British prestige; the sterling area advantage; the advantage he receives from agricultural goods having a 10 per cent. preferential treatment upon entering his country, and of receiving loans from London to develop his island. All those things are of very real value to the Greek Cypriot.
If he had union with Greece they would be swept away, and his rising standard of living would be dragged down to the level of that of Greece itself. Although I am not unmindful of our responsibility and certainly do not want to see us abandon our trust, I nevertheless feel that from the point of view of the Cypriots themselves there is a very good reason for resisting any union with Greece at this juncture.
I do not want to see us letting down our gallant friends, the Turks. Some of my views about the Suez operation are rather different from those of some of my hon. Friends, but I have been very impressed by the way in which the Turks


stuck by us during that difficult time, and the way in which they have rallied to our aid and gathered a good deal of support for our country. The same may be said of the Turkish Cypriots. They are a very good bunch of people. I do not want us to surrender our trust because of any pressure by terrorists, or because of any political pressure, whether or not it conies from the United Nations. We must stick by the Turks and see that they receive justice. I should not be prepared to buy political or military peace in Cyprus at the expense of surrendering the principle of justice for the Turks.
This problem can be solved by good will, but it cannot be solved if we rush it. Having listened to hon. Members opposite, I have the impression that they feel that this situation, which is bubbling over with trouble, turmoil and bloodshed, must be resolved tomorrow. That is not the order of things. We need infinite patience to resolve the problem; it cannot be resolved overnight. Our first duty is to do away with terrorism. Only when we have done that can we and the Greek Cypriots start thinking about the problem of the political future of the island. We must not be rushed along to try to find a solution tomorrow, as hon. Members opposite seem to want us to do, because we shall not find it tomorrow; it is much too complicated and difficult a problem for that.
We must be prepared to wait upon events. Our prime duty is to end terrorism. Then we can start influencing political events as much as possible. I urge hon. Members opposite—many of whom have a very sincere outlook upon this question—not to take the view that a solution must be found tomorrow, because it cannot be done. We must be prepared to exercise the greatest possible patience.
If we can end terrorism and can bring a new outlook into the island, I do not rule out the possibility of our being able to begin talking about the new Constitution and see that it is discussed by Greek and Turk alike, and reach some sort of agreement. We must keep Makarios out of the island altogether. I do not see any reason why he should be brought back. We can then bring back to the island a very much healthier state of affairs than it has had for a very long time. I hope that we shall not try to rush events in

Cyprus. There is no hope for us if we try to impose a ready-made solution of the problem. We must try to take one step at a time.
I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said and repeat that I am proud of the work that he has done in the colonial sphere since he has been Colonial Secretary. There is nothing for anyone in this country to be ashamed of in what he has done. In the administration of colonial affairs he has been as enlightened as any of his predecessors, whether they be from this or the other side of the Committee. I am content to leave this difficult problem to his handling, and have confidence in his ability to deal with it.

8.34 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South): The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) should feel pleased with the Colonial Secretary, for the right hon. Gentleman seems to have taken the hon. Member's advice. He certainly shows no signs of rushing into a solution of the Cyprus problem. He shows no signs of appreciating that there is anything urgent in the position. He seems even more pleased than his hon. Friend to wait upon events and see what happens, and not to expect anything tomorrow. I wonder how many more tomorrows there will have to be—tomorrows which will see killing, murder and deaths from all sorts of causes which are defiling this beautiful island—before the Government decide that there is something urgent about the question.
I have followed the debate very carefully, and I must admit to a feeling of profound disappointment and dismay. The Radcliffe proposals, for which we had waited long and anxiously, were published before Christmas. Then the right hon. Gentleman, taking the advice of his hon. Friend about not hurrying, let everything go. It was the Opposition which had to find time even for today's debate. We hoped that in providing time today we were giving the opportunity to the Government to make some constructive statement of policy. I submit that throughout the whole of this debate we have had nothing new, nothing useful, nothing interesting. In fact, one felt from time to time caught up in a sort of time machine and of having been here before.
Quotations have been made from debates from 1945 to 1950. The same


columns in HANSARD have been quoted, the same interjections and the same arguments used, and there has been a complete failure to look forward and give the Committee and the country a lead on what has to be done in Cyprus. Hon. Members opposite who have complained about lack of bi-partisanship in this debate have no right to do so, because they cannot expect us to be associated with their completely unsuccessful and disastrous policy. It seems that they have learned absolutely nothing but, unlike the Bourbons, have forgotten everything. The hon. Member for Cheadle tried to do an arithmetical sum about an historical comradeship in arms, but he must look further back than Suez to find whether it has been the Greeks or the Turks who have most often stood alongside this country in her hour of need. Perhaps he has not heard of Gallipoli?
The Under-Secretary of State made a futile statement, which was as monotonous but not as interesting as a Greek chorus, that the final destruction of E.O.K.A. is now near. We have been told that time and time again. When Grivas offered a truce we were told that it would not be accepted because it was only a trick as E.O.K.A. was on its knees and about to be defeated instead of which we have had increasing violence everywhere.
The difficulty is that we cannot work out the progress we are making in dealing with E.O.K.A. in terms of the number of individual leaders who are captured in the mountains. The real problem about E.O.K.A. is not to be found among the individual full-time leaders, but in the fact that there is a bit of E.O.K.A. in thousands of people in Cyprus. It is that bit of "the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker" which makes him patriotic and makes him have aspirations for his country which might not coincide with our aspirations. That is particularly true of the young people. All we have heard about continuing repression in Cyprus is particularly disastrous so far as the younger generation is concerned. It seems such a failure to understand the kind of things which make young people tick.
Do the Government not realise that repression and fear of punishment add a dreadful glamour to violence and that the threat of death and being found with a

bullet in one's pocket dramatises the situation in a way which may be terribly glamorous, like a frightful rock 'n roll, which is demanding and consuming? The greater the danger the bigger the stature given to young people who take these risks, however mistaken they may be thought to be in taking them.
We have had the repetition of the statement that we must have law and order first before we can do anything else, as if the very circumstances about which we are talking are not in themselves inimical to the restoration of law and order. It is rather like a doctor saying that he will not deal with a patient until the disease starts to behave itself. We have to recognise that the pacification of Cyprus must start before we can expect violence to decrease.
The Minister of State also referred with some surprise to the fact that the Greek Government had made a statement on the Radcliffe proposals before the Cypriots had had time to speak about them. I hope the Secretary of State will explain that he went to Athens, presumably to ask the Greeks what they thought about the proposals, whereas as far as I know he did not go to Cyprus on this occasion or ask the Cypriots what they thought about them. It is extraordinary that his Minister of State should seem to blame the Greeks for expressing a point of view.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I went to Athens and Istanbul to urge both Governments to say nothing prematurely but to study the proposals in detail. I was desperately anxious, particularly in the dangerous situation in Athens, that the Greek Government should not come out with some hasty judgment before they had read the full proposals. I was not wholly successful in my visit. I went not to get them to say something but to get them to say nothing until they had read the full proposals.

Mrs. Jeger: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the anxiety of all of us is that it should be the views of the Cypriot people which we get on the Radcliffe proposals. Time and time again in history they are the forgotten people. An hon. Member earlier today referred to the fact that Britain was in Cyprus by treaty rights—but she is not there by a treaty with which


the Cypriot people themselves have been associated in any way.
From hon. Members opposite we have had a repetition of their condemnation of Archbishop Makarios for his failure to condemn violence. This seems to me to be completely unconstructive. Surely it is a challenge to statesmanship in an impasse of this kind to find a way out and not to continue repeating the same difficulties. This is a complete failure to understand that the rôle of the Church in the East in nationalist movements is quite different from the rôle of the Church as we understand it in this country. I remember that during the last war we were very proud of the part which Archbishop Damaskinos played in Greece as a leader of the national movement. It is very much a part of the traditions of the Church that their leaders should be in the forefront of the struggle for nationalism.
Nowhere in history, as far as I remember, has there been a nationalist movement in which there was no violence. Those who refuse to deal with Archbishop Makarios will surely recall that very similar things were said during the Irish troubles, but in the end we had to bring the Irish leaders to London and our statesmen had to "shake hands with murder", as was then said.
In the brief time remaining I want to do what I blame other hon. Members for not doing—to try to look ahead. The Radcliffe proposals were published before Christmas and this is the first opportunity we have had in the House of discussing them. It seems to me that we are in great danger that the Radcliffe Constitution on which such high hopes had been fixed will end up as a superb irrelevance. I say "superb" because, as a piece of constitutional draftsmanship, this is a superb document. Within the confines of the very difficult terms of reference which were laid down for Lord Radcliffe, he had no option but to produce what is fundamentally a colonial constitution, with a Governor's veto and very large areas of reserve powers. Given those restrictions, I think Lord Radcliffe has produced a constitution in which the safeguards which it provides for the Turkish minority could not be bettered.
But this Constitution can be regarded only as part of the picture. By itself it

is irrelevant, but during the talks last year Archbishop Makarios emphasised that although self-determination must be the ultimate goal, for an interim period he would be prepared to try to work out some sort of self-governing constitution. I submit that if we really want this Constitution to be worked out and put into effect, it must be on the understanding in the first place that it is negotiable, that it can be changed; and secondly, that it is only an interim measure, and that the opportunity will be given to the Cypriot people to determine their full sovereignty in the future.
In order to do that, I submit that we have to create a new situation. We cannot just leave this on the table and go on hoping that moderate leaders will come forward. It is not only because of terrorism that moderate leaders do not come forward. They did not come forward when on previous occasions constitutions were put before them long before the emergency began. If after having put Lord Radcliffe to all this trouble, the right hon. Gentleman is now just leaving these constitutions on the table, hoping that someone will come and pick them up, that is not good enough. He should tell the Committee—I wish he had told us at the beginning of the debate, because it would have been more courteous and helpful—what are his proposals. Unless the parties are brought together to discuss this document, what is the good of it?
Surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise, whatever he or his hon. Friends think about Archbishop Makarios, that he is the person the Cypriot people want to lead them out of this present impasse. If I may say so, it seems to me extraordinarily impudent of hon. Members opposite to suggest that we cannot possibly negotiate with His Beatitude. Surely, when we are trying to negotiate with the people of another country, it is for them to say whom shall be their spokesman. Anyone who knows Cyprus, or anything of the history of that island, must accept that the leader of the Church is the leader of the people. He is the Ethnarch, and if anyone wants to criticise his position, let them remember that it was under the Ottoman Empire that the office of Ethnarchy was first created.
One hon. Member suggested it would be a good idea rather than partition to try a federation constitution. I would


refer to Lord Radcliffe's examination of the federation possibility. He said that he examined federation, and on page 13 of his Report goes on to say:
There is no pattern of territorial separation between the two communities, and, apart from other objections, federation of communities Much does not involve also federation of territories seems to me a very difficult constitutional form.
It seems to me too, and if there is no pattern of territorial separation sufficient for a federation basis, there certainly cannot be any territorial pattern that would point to partition as a basis of settlement of the whole dispute.
I think the suggestion of partition is one of the most mischievous and dangerous which can possibly be made. I do not wish to make any unworthy imputations, but it seemed to me at the time almost as if the Colonial Secretary was afraid that the Greeks might accept Lord Radcliffe's proposals; and, to make sure that they would not, threw in at the same time this threat of partition. It is an interesting fact that of all the Turks with whom I have discussed this problem in Cyprus and in London, never once has any Turkish spokesman put forward the idea of partition.
I am absolutely convinced that it was thought up in London. I can remember when it was first referred to in this House and not taken seriously, but I see now that a kite was being flown and this idea, which has no spontaneity at all so far as the Turks are concerned, has now bedevilled the whole situation. In discussing with Cypriots the good points in the Radcliffe proposals, I find that they are frightened, because partition was announced as a possibility at the same time as the Radcliffe proposals were published, that there is some connection in the minds of the Government, that there is a real danger that if they try to come half-way on this, they will find themselves caught in a trap which will lead to partition and that is quite impracticable. I do not think that the Government could point to any historical success for partition anywhere in the world. Even Lord Curzon was very anxious after the First World War to oppose the suggested partition of Asia Minor.
We must face the fact that Archbishop Makarios must be brought into negotiate on the Radcliffe proposals, on the certain

understanding that the Archbishop must be made to feel absolutely free from any duress. These proposals should be put forward as a halfway house to full self-determination. I would like to see not just a conference across a table but a round-table conference, in which the Mufti might be asked to take part with other leaders, such as trade union leaders.
Her Majesty's Government are at the end of their tether. They should try in Cyprus the pattern which they tried in Malta and that was tried before the war in India. I hope that Members on this side of the Committee might be associated in discussions on the future of the island. It might induce our Cypriot friends to take part in these talks if certain assurances were given beforehand.
I hope that the Colonial Secretary will reply fully on the subject of the emergency laws. There is great disquiet at many of the reports that have appeared in the Press and that have been referred to in the debate. I have been reading all the cuttings from The Times of Cyprus very carefully, including those articles which have brought down such wrath on Mr. Foley's head. Mr. Foley is a most responsible and serious editor, who is greatly respected by the British community in Cyprus. If one reads his articles and then reads the Government's reproof of him, one is surprised and dismayed. One is left with the conclusion that the Government do not want newspapers at all.

Mr. Callaghan: Unless they agree with them.

Mrs. Jeger: Yes. Mr. Foley starts off one of these articles by congratulating the Governor on his broadcast, but even that congratulation did not help. Members of the Press in Cyprus must be feeling that the Government are very hard to please.
Even more serious are the accusations which involve the treatment of prisoners. I am glad that the Government have given an assurance of taking these things very seriously, especially when the Cyprus Bar, as such, makes such serious allegations. The Bar in Cyprus is the one professional body which consists entirely of people trained in this country. In most of the other professions there is a tendency to go to the University at Athens, but lawyers have to come here. All the lawyers who form the Bar in


Cyprus have been called to the Bar by one of our Inns of Court and they have been trained in our common law.
When a responsible body like that makes such serious allegations and finds that, in order to protect their people, they have to set up on their own a Commission of Human Rights, the most serious consideration should be given to the matter. Why, for instance, was Mr. Kypriakou of Yeri kept from his lawyer for thirty days? It took his lawyer thirty days to get information as to the prison in which he could be found. We have had reference to the case of Christodoulides, who was acquitted by Mr. Justice Bernard Shaw on this matter of duress, or, let me be careful and say that the decision of the judge was that there was no evidence that the confession had not been obtained under duress, which I find equally worrying.
I wish that the Secretary of State would tell us a little more about the senior officials in Cyprus. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the Governor, who has not a great deal of political experience, is surrounded by very helpful advisers. Again, I want to know something about the public information services. I understand that we have a new chief information officer, the third since the emergency began. I wonder what has happened to the other gentlemen, and what are the qualifications of the present official.
As we must give adequate time for the remaining important speeches, I should like, in conclusion, to reiterate what seem to me to be the minimum constructive proposals. As regards the complaints of the Bar and the complaints about the Press Regulation, it would be a good thing if an all-party delegation from the House, including one or two lawyers from each side, were to go to Cyprus and investigate. If that delegation represented the whole House, I think that we would find people able and willing to discuss the problems.
Secondly, turning to the Radcliffe proposals, I submit that Makarios should be brought either to London or to some other place where he is not regarded, or does not regard himself as a prisoner, together with such advisers as he may wish to accompany him, and with other leaders of the Cypriot people, so that we can take a constructive step forward. If the

Government are not prepared to take any constructive measures, then that is another reason why they should get out and make room for someone who will.

8.57 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The last occasion on which we discussed fully the tragic situation in Cyprus was in September of last year. Today, we on this side have again pressed the Government to indicate that they have some positive proposals to break this disastrous deadlock. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) by saying that his speech was helpful; that though it contained proposals that did not commend themselves to them it was, at any rate, a constructive speech.
I am quite sure that we all looked forward greatly to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State some answer to the question which we had put as to how the situation was to be brought to an end. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying so, but I thought that the only really helpful remark he made was to promise us that the Secretary of State would deal with the various instances of brutality to which we have called attention. I am sorry to have to say this, but it seemed to me that his speech was completely and utterly devoid of content. We were met by the same dreary recital of the circumstances; that terrorism must be brought to an end. We were given no kind of indication at all when it was to come to an end.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State; how long are we to wait? Are we to wait for a month, for six months, a year, for two years—for ten years—to see an end of this succession of murders and woundings before the Government will bestir themselves to take some active steps to get into negotiation with the only persons who are in a position to speak on behalf of the Greek Cypriots in the island?
What is the situation today? We have the same dreary recital of these sad murders and woundings, shootings from behind doorways, of young men lobbing bombs against innocent civilians and soldiers. We have been told that there have been successes scored against the E.O.K.A. terrorists. I was in Cyprus last month, and all I can say is that when I


was there an unfortunate soldier, in circumstances of great heroism on his part, was killed, and a few days afterwards I heard I hat there were other outrages, other people losing their lives in various parts of the island.
I would ask the Secretary of State whether he can at least give us some figures of killings and woundings in January which will provide some indication that they are lessening in number. So far as I have been able to understand, since the beginning of November last year to date there have been 59 killings, if my calculations are correct, besides the woundings which have gone on. I again ask the right hon. Gentleman, by what time does he think we have any hope of seeing a permanent cessation of this series of outrages?
May I make it perfectly plain that neither I nor any of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in any sense apologists for violent action. We dislike it as much in Cyprus as we disliked it in Suez. The tragedy of the situation, a situation for which the Government must accept a large measure of responsibility, is that though we abhor the acts of violence which are committed, those who perpetrate them perpetrate them in the belief that they are doing acts of heroism and sacrifice. The tragedy is that, when there is a violent clash of feeling between large numbers of people, those misconceptions arise to bedevil the situation. Those acts of brutality continue.
The Under-Secretary of State said, as did certain of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a comparatively new and extremely dangerous feature of the situation today is the outbreak of inter-communal violence. I would particularly like to call attention to this because, unless these incidents cease, all hope of bringing together once more in peace the two principal races in the island, the Greeks and the Turks, will quickly vanish. That is something which is happening today and is likely to go on. The Under-Secretary said that these incidents had died down for a bit, but almost in the next sentence he said that they had broken out again. I suppose that, just as the various acts of violence of which we have heard have gone on throughout the months, we shall now hear of this sort of thing going on throughout the months. This is another circumstance

which emphasises the urgent necessity of taking some steps to break through the deadlock which exists.
I should like to say a word or two about the repressive regulations, about this serious and, I would think, wholly unjustifiable invasion of the right of free publication in newspapers. I must confess that I agree very readily with the comment made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), that when we have such situations as this, of course one has to have extremely repressive regulations in order to try and restrain them. That is the consequence of Government policy, and it makes it all the more essential to bring to an end the situation which makes that kind of repressive legislation necessary.
Another feature of this sort of thing is that rumours get about of brutality on the part of members of the police force, of excessive and brutal methods of interrogation being applied. We have had examples referred to in the course of debate, and we shall look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say about them.
I should like to refer to two in particular. One is the first of the cases mentioned in the article by Peter Benenson published in the Manchester Guardian today. The Under-Secretary was not in a position to reassure us about it, but I would ask the Secretary of State to make certain that that case has been fully and thoroughly investigated. I have not the least doubt that Sir John Harding abhors brutality as much as anybody else, and I have no doubt that he conscientiously believes that the matter has been investigated, but I would ask the Secretary of State to pay attention to the facts in that case.
After some considerable time, a letter was received from the Administration saying that no officer could be identified as an officer who might have committed the acts of brutality that were alleged. The woman in question had had a miscarriage and it could easily be ascertained whether she had had it. Those who attended her in her miscarriage surely must have been able to give evidence with regard to injuries that might have been visible on her body, and the number of the police officers to whom she had complained is given in the article.
Surely, it must be possible to get at some verification of the facts, and surely it is unsatisfactory for the Under-Secretary to say simply that nothing was proved and for the Secretary of State, if that is what he is going to do, simply to repeat it. I urgently press upon the right hon. Gentleman to see that the case is fully and thoroughly investigated and, in due course, to come back to the House and make a statement showing the result of the investigation.
Particularly would I urge the Secretary of State to do that, because another case is reported in the Manchester Guardian today. A Cypriot was charged with murder before Mr. Justice Shaw, Mr. Justice Shaw being unwilling to call upon him for a defence because he could not be satisfied on the evidence that the accused person had not been subjected to ill-treatment.
That is a particularly serious feature of the situation. It is particularly serious because, as has been said before, incidents of that sort may be true or may be untrue. Even if they are untrue, they are believed when people's feelings are as exasperated as they are in Cyprus today. It is believed that that sort of thing is going on. It is, therefore, imperatively necessary that every case in which treatment of that kind is alleged should be immediately, fully and thoroughly investigated. But what is more imperative than ever is that the Government should awake out of their lethargy and decide that they will take steps—at least, that they should carefully consider the steps which we have proposed—to try to break through the deadlock which now has descended upon the situation and threatens, apparently, to crystallise it for months.
The Under-Secretary said that there had been successes against the E.O.K.A. terrorists. If there are successes against them which give him such hope, why do the murders continue, as they do today? I will suggest a reason. It may well be that the guerrilla fighters in the mountains are gradually being rounded up and, possibly, killed; but how is it possible to prevent the murders which are committed in the narrow streets in the walled towns, when nobody is prepared to denounce the murderer and when the murderer has easy and ample opportunity of escape in the narrow alleyways and in the crowded streets?
Whatever the explanation, the fact cannot be gainsaid—and I challenge the Secretary of State to give the figures for last month and this month—that the killings and woundings are continuing. The answer that we have had, month after month almost, in Parliamentary Questions and in reply to question put in the course of debate, that the E.O.K.A. violence is about to come to an end is, I would fear, as false today as it has been ever since it was given in April, 1955, when violence first broke out.
While this goes on, incredible damage is done to the good name of this country all over the world. I have no doubt that the officials in Cyprus work with the best of intention and by common consent it is accepted that the British soldiers there are behaving as we should expect British soldiers to behave. They are carrying out their difficult and unpleasant duties in circumstances of danger with that dignity, patience and restraint which we would expect of them. In spite of their behaviour, however, the good name of Britain is being gradually lowered and the reputation of Britain is being smirched all over the world because, it is said, these repressive and, indeed, totalitarian measures, as they have been described in the course of this debate, are being applied to try to keep down the population of Cyprus. That is how it is represented throughout the world and that is what is causing the damage to the good name of this country throughout the world and will go on causing it damage so long as this deadlock remains.
The Government's thinking from the very beginning of this tragedy has, I believe, been based upon a wholly false conception, two complete miscalculations of the real factors in the case. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), in an extremely moving and useful speech, pointed out, was their belief that when they deported Archbishop Makarios they were, as it were, taking away the head and the heart of terrorism and that it would gradually cease. Events since then have shown how completely and utterly untrue that forecast was. Terrorism has gone on. All that has happened is that Archbishop Makarios, exiled in the Indian Ocean, from having been a leader, as he was at the time, has now been exalted into a national hero whose presence is absolutely indispensable to the


conduct of negotiations. That is what the Government have achieved by it.
The second misconception was that sooner or later terrorism would come to an end and that public opinion would swing against the terrorists. I was in Cyprus. I agree that I was there only a very short time and was able to talk to only a few people, but all those to whom I talked were people who were responsible and measured in the opinions which they expressed, as I thought, at any rate, and they at that time expressed exactly the contrary view. Their view was that the Government were miscalculating if they thought that the terrorists would lose popular sympathy. Their view was that the repressive measures taken by the Government, those very acts of alleged—I emphasise the word "alleged"—brutality of which I have spoken were gradually winning sympathy over to the terrorists and that if the Government were looking to the time when acts of violence would cease they really were backing a completely wrong horse. That is what events would seem to show. After I left, there was an outbreak of terrorism which was worse than any which had been experienced for some time before.
What is the basic factor of this situation? The Secretary of State has said today that he was convinced that he was right in deporting Archbishop Makarios. Personally, I think that he was completely and hopelessly wrong, but whether he was wrong or whether he was right—if I may have his attention, because this is a serious debate and I am sure he will realise it is, just as his own measure of responsibility in it is very serious also; so I hope that he will pay attention—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was only looking up what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) said, who strongly supported what I did, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will quote him also.

Sir F. Soskice: My hon. Friend has a perfect right to his opinion. So have I, and so have all my hon. Friends, a very great many of whom, so far as I am aware, share the views I am now expressing, which is that one of the greatest acts of folly committed by the Government in these tragic events was the deportation of the one person capable of

conducting negotiations on behalf of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus, and that almost at the very moment when agreement was about to be reached.
The right hon. Gentleman says it is untrue, but the fact is that since Archbishop Makarios has gone—and I challenge the Secretary of State to contradict me if I am wrong about this—since March, 1956, so far as I know, there has been a complete gulf between the Governor, the Secretary of State and any responsible leader of opinion on the part of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus. That has lasted now for practically a year, and I dare say that if the Government do not change their policy it will go on for another two or three years until the position is utterly past retrieving.
I think myself that the Secretary of State again made a serious miscalculation in August of this year when the E.O.K.A. leaders in Cyprus declared the truce and did bring an end to violence. The Secretary of State, almost immediately after that took place, made what I think was one of the most intemperate speeches, besides being wholly misconceived, ever made in this Chamber. He affected to look upon the cessation of violence as no more than a mere device on the part of the E.O.K.A. terrorists at their last gasp, completely exhausted and about to give up, to gain a little more time in which to recruit their forces and regather their strength. That is what he said in this Chamber, and in consequence the terms of surrender were issued, which were at once rejected by the E.O.K.A. terrorists, who at once again resumed their active campaign.
I should have thought that that was another case which showed conclusively that the Secretary of State's appreciation of this position has been wholly false from beginning to end. It was false in March of last year, when he deported the Archbishop and thought that it would bring an end to acts of violence. It was false again in August, when he misconstrued the objective of the E.O.K.A. leaders in declaring the truce. I believe that it is just as false today, when the Under-Secretary of State, no doubt on the authority of his right hon. Friend, again reverted to the same position by saying that what we must do is bring terrorism to an end before anything can happen.
That really was all he said, or very nearly all. The same thing was said in different ways, but it came to the same thing in the end. He did also say a few other things, speaking for about half an hour, but somewhat anchored to a prepared brief, which made it somewhat difficult in the circumstances to answer the actual questions put to him by my hon. Friend. Therefore, I am putting them again. I am asking the Secretary of State, when he gets up to reply, to give us the answers to the questions we have been asking from the beginning of this debate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said in opening the debate, and as has been said by many of my hon. Friends since he spoke, there are really some basic features of the present situation. One of the original prime necessities which the Government apparently had in mind at the time of the famous "never-never" speech in July, 1954, was the idea that Cyprus must always remain a special British responsibility, because of strategic considerations. My hon. Friend who opened the debate examined that concept in great detail, and there was an exchange on the present situation concerning the Tripartite Declaration which I feel sure the whole Committee would agree ended in favour of my hon. Friend, somewhat to the discomfiture of the Minister who tried to answer.
From beginning to end, there has still been no answer given to the case made by my hon. Friend, and to the fact that Cyprus as a British base is something which no longer should enter as a predominant feature into our consideration. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, but I cannot remember that he gave any answer to the case my hon. Friend made except in the interjection he made when my hon. Friend was on his feet. If there was any such answer, I did not cull it out of his brief as he pursued the various lines of reasoning contained in the brief. Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State will either be able to accept the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend, or, if he cannot accept it, will say what the answer is.
The second basic feature in the situation is that it is really essential now to start thinking in terms of bringing the

Archbishop back into the sphere of negotiations. My hon. Friend asked over and over again for the name of any responsible leader who had either come forward or was likely to come forward, or who could be looked upon as a possible negotiator on behalf of Greek opinion in Cyprus, and with whom the Governor had been in contact or with whom the Secretary of State had been in communication since the date in March, 1956, which brought to an end the five months' old negotiations which had then been taking place between the Governor, the Secretary of State and Archbishop Makarios. The Under-Secretary of State could give us no name. Indeed, I am not surprised at that, and I do not blame him, because there was no name to give.
That being so, I would again put the question which my hon. Friend put, and I put it to the Secretary of State himself. I ask him what alternative is there to bringing back the Archbishop to negotiate with him? The only alternative is to let this deteriorating situation get worse from week to week, until, as I have said, it gets hopelessly beyond cure. I would therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have already urged him, to accept at long last the view that, whether he was right or wrong in originally deporting the Archbishop, at any rate, now he should accept the humiliation—if it is one, for accepting the right policy does not necessarily bring humiliation to anybody if it is designed to bring an end to violence—and accept the view that he must now bring back the Archbishop.
After all, it really does not advance matters simply to go on saying that the Archbishop is a wicked man, and that therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have nothing to do with him. It is even less so when it is perfectly clear from Sir John Harding's own declaration at the time the Archbishop was deported that it was perfectly well-known then, and was apparently well-known during the five months in which the negotiations had been going on with the the Archbishop from September, 1955, to February, 1956, that he was thought to be implicated in violence.
I do not join in the controversy as to whether the Archbishop was implicated or not. I would agree with my hon. Friend that it would certainly look


as if he was implicated, but if he was it was known at that time. The fact that he was implicated in violence should surely be no more of an obstacle now to the resumption of conversations with him than it was at that time when the negotiations were carried on for five months up to the time that he was deported. If that step is not taken, I ask the Secretary of State what other step can be taken in order to get conversations in train which may hold out some hope of bringing an end to this disastrous deadlock with its melancholy toll of innocent victims, Service men and civilians, week after week, month after month for an indefinite period—nobody knows how long.
I would say to the Secretary of State that the longer conversations with the Archbishop are delayed, the higher and more impregnable does the Archbishop's position become amongst the E.O.K.A. leaders and E.O.K.A. sympathisers in Cyprus. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to do it now, when there is still some hope of getting the Radcliffe Constitution operated for an agreed trial period in Cyprus, the time will come, perhaps when it is almost too late, when the right hon. Gentleman will have to accept and bow down to the view that he has been wrong to keep the Archbishop exiled in the Indian Ocean as long as he has.
I should like to say something about the Radcliffe Constitution itself. I cannot help thinking that when he announced the Constitution to the House on 19th December last year, the Secretary of State again made an error of calculation when in effect he presented it to the House and—though I do not know—I dare say he presented it to the Greek Government when he went to Athens and perhaps to the Turkish Government as one organic, systematic whole which could not accept change without completely upsetting its balance. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Athens and said to the Greek leaders in Greece, "You can either accept or reject it", that was a profound error. I suspect from the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the House at that time that that was the kind of way he spoke to the Greeks.
If, as it appears, the right hon. Gentleman is indicating that he did not, I accept that, but if his speech in the House was

read in Athens it would convey a very unfortunate impression. I earnestly ask him to say now perfectly clearly, in the course of his reply, that he accepts, as my hon. Friends have asked him to say, that the scheme is discussable—to use that rather ugly term—and that it is susceptible to change, in particular because the Radcliffe proposals are somewhat less generous in their scope than was the original scheme which was discussed with Archbishop Makarios in February, 1956.
It is less generous in this respect at least—that the Radcliffe proposed Constitution reserves in perpetuity to the Governor responsibility for internal security, whereas in February, 1956, that was a matter which was to be reserved only until the restoration of law and order. Therefore, the scheme being less forthcoming in the direction of self-government for Cyprus, I would say that for that reason, if for no other, in order to ensure that the scheme may have some prospect of really being put into operation, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say quite unequivocally now that he accepts at once that the scheme—the proposals framed by Lord Radcliffe with such skill and care—are the subject of negotiation and discussion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that the provisions in regard to internal security and the safeguards for the Turkish minority can be discussed and, in general, that this is a point of departure and is not to be regarded as a closed gate.
I would add this. I think he made another very grave error, as many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee pointed out, in seeking to tag on the prospect of ultimate partition as one of the concomitants of this scheme. I confess that I have a very limited knowledge of Cyprus, but even during the one small journey I made there—and my impression is confirmed by many others who have been to that island—it seemed to me that the idea of partitioning it between the Turks and the Greek inhabitants, let alone the other two races, is utterly unpractical. Driving along, one passes first through a Greek village, then through a Turkish village, with Greek and Turkish houses almost next door to each other. So, unless there is a wholesale transfer of population compulsorily from one part of the island to the other,


I cannot see how any proposals for partition could be regarded as being practicable or within the sphere of possibility.
I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will deal with the point. The basic pivot upon which the discussions have so long turned is the question of self-determination. Over and over again the Government have said, since they first abandoned their position taken up in July, 1954, that they accept the principle of self-determination. By so doing, they accept in principle that at some time or other the peoples of Cyprus shall be entitled by their own expressed will, to say what their future is to be.
Having said that, if the Under-Secretary of State is to be accepted at his full face value when he makes the speech that he made this afternoon; when the hon. Gentleman says that if the British leave the Greeks and the Turks will be at each other's throats, is that not another way of saying that although the principle of self-determination is accepted, it is never to be granted? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me put my point. If the likely, or a possible, result of the right to choose their own future being accorded to the Cypriots in Cyprus is that they may choose Enosis—and putting it at the very lowest that cannot be excluded as a possibility and most people would say that it was almost a certainty; and if, supposing we cede Cyprus to the Greeks, the view of the Government is that Greece and Turkey will be each other's throats—to quote the words of the Minister as closely as I could get them down; if that is the true situation, is not that another way of saying that there is never to be self-determination?

Mr. Profumo: Mr. Profumo indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice: The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. I hope the Secretary of State will reconcile what seems to me to be an irreconcilable inconsistency.

Mr. Profumo: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to put this straight? I know he is anxious to represent me correctly. What I said was, if we were to leave now. I said there were some hon. Gentlemen who felt that, if it were not important to keep a base in Cyprus, we might be able to hand the whole thing over and leave now. I

pointed out that if we left now it would leave the Turks and Greeks at each other's throats.

Sir F. Soskice: That interjection emboldens me to make the next proposal I was going to make to the Committee. It is this. We ought to strive to get the Constitution in operation after due negotiation and discussion upon it, with, if possible—and this I would stress—a perod agreed between all the parties concerned for its operation. During that period it would be wise to reserve, so far as we can, and not to put, the specfic questions that will ultimately have to be answered when the right to determine their own future is accorded by means of a free vote on the subject to the people of Cyprus.
In the meantime, I urge the Government to make perfectly clear what they mean. I feel that the situation has been confused, and is being bedevilled, by the apparent inconsistency between an attitude which says the Turks cannot agree to it and an attitude which says the Cypriots shall have the right to determine their own future. Prima facie, the two things seem to be inconsistent. The statement made by the Minister today in the debate was not being made for the first time. It was made by Sir Anthony Eden in July last and has since been repeated.
I believe that the argument concerning the Turks has been introduced somewhat late in the discussion. It did not feature earlier than the Tripartite Agreement in September, 1955. It is an argument introduced into the discussion which has led to uncertainty in the minds of would-be Cypriot negotiators as to what the Government's real intentions are.
I will summarise the proposals which have already been made to the Government, and which I will again put to the Government for their earnest consideration. First, I would again remind the Secretary of State of the promise made by the Under-Secretary that the right hon. Gentleman would say something to dispel the uneasiness which has undoubtedly been engendered by allegations—I emphasise "allegations" because I have not the faintest idea whether what is alleged is true or not—of brutality by the police. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to deal with the matter fully now, I hope he will undertake to do so in the House in due course


when a proper investigation has been made.
Secondly, I would urge, as has already been urged, that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the necessity for bringing Archbishop Makarios back into the discussions. It might be asked whether the Archbishop should be brought back unconditionally and without his making an appeal for the ending of violence. Frankly, I wish he had done that already. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) that I do not regard it as a great indignity to ask people to stop killing each other.
I believe that if it was made clear to the E.O.K.A. leaders in Cyprus that there was a desire to bring back the Archbishop so that he could conduct negotiations, there should in practice be no real difficulty about getting an unqualified statement from him, to be suitably published, asking that violence should come to an end in order that discussions might take place. There is a question that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will deal with it. Is he not really committed to doing that, having sent Mr. Tornaritis and Mr. Pearson to explain the content of the Radcliffe proposals? Surely it is a somewhat inconsistent attitude to say to a man "I should like to know what your views are, but I think you are a terrible villain."
Therefore, the second thing I would ask the Government to do is now to take up a positive and clear attitude on the basic question of self-determination by trying to remove the doubts which have arisen in the minds of the Cypriots as to what the Government's intentions really are with regard to conceding the right of the inhabitants of Cyprus to decide their own future.
Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East asked him, to make it clear that the Radcliffe proposals are susceptible of discussion, and to make a real endeavour to bring the Archbishop back to get discussions going on the proposals, with an agreed time for their operation, in the hope that at long last we may bring an end to this tragic situation.
If that is not done, I can see no alternative to a gradual deterioration of the

situation leading to an increasing number of communal incidents and growing bitterness, with increasing numbers of killed and wounded, until the position becomes one which no statesmanship can possibly retrieve. Much as both sides of the Committee deplore acts of violence, it is the province of statesmanship, both Greek Cypriot and British to avoid the conditions which gave rise to the sort of situation characterised by the tragic features which we have been discussing today.

9.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, rightly, that the last time we had a full discussion of Cyprus problems was in September last year. We have, of course, had a number of debates on definite Cypriot issues since then. On 19th December, I made a comprehensive statement when announcing Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of Lord Radcliffe's proposals.
From time to time it has been suggested that I extinguished the light at the end of the tunnel, that light represented by the constitutional proposals, by my mention, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, of the option of integral self-determination, that is, self-determination for each community under certain circumstances. I do not believe that I extinguished the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is no secret, I think, to say that that point was never made to me with great vigour in any of my talks either in Istanbul or in Athens. To me it was, and to Her Majesty's Government it seemed, an inescapable consequence of the exercise of self-determination.
May I remind the Committee under what circumstances this integral self-determination would come about, if it comes about at all? It would come about when it was felt that there should be self-determination for the island. There would then be a vote in the island as a whole. If, as a result of that vote, the majority voted for a change of sovereignty and for breaking their link with the British Commonwealth, then there would be a second vote among the Turks in the island. If the Turks then decided that they did not wish to follow the Greek majority, they would be


allowed then to have integral self-determination with Turkey.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he knew very little—he was quite candid about it—about the problems of Cyprus. If he really believes, having been in Cyprus, and if, having been in Cyprus more often he still believed, that an island which was for three hundred years part of the Turkish dominions and which is only 40 miles from Turkey and flanks the only two ports through which aid could come to Turkey in the event of an armed conflict if, after experience of Cyprus, he really believed that the Turks would be prepared to allow self-determination for the island as a whole in these difficult circumstances, then I suggest that he ought to think again. I am rather reassured by the knowledge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that his knowledge of Cyprus was very limited. [Interruption.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman used quite rough language to me and hon. Members opposite must not be too choosy if I use rough language to them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the Radcliffe proposals. He and a number of hon. Members complain that I did not open the debate and an equally large number of Members would have complained—I think a greater number—if I had not closed it and dealt with the various points that have been raised. I hope that hon. Members on both sides, whether they think that I ought to have opened or closed the debate, will listen to my contribution.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether the Radcliffe proposals represented a point of departure, or whether it would be possible in fact for them to be amended. As we explained both to the Greek and the Turkish Governments, and as the Governor has explained repeatedly to the people of Cyprus as a whole, these proposals were carefully, and—I would agree with the hon. Lady the Member for St. Pancras and Holborn, South (Mrs. Jeger)—I think brilliantly worked out, by Lord Radcliffe as a balanced whole.
The Turkish acceptance of these proposals was on certain definite assumptions of the protection of Turkish interests. There would be fundamental changes in the proposals which would

alter the whole balance if the proposals were no longer, or might well be no longer, acceptable to Turkey, or, indeed, might not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. But, of course, there might be suggestions—we told both the Greeks and the Turks this—about the proposals which we would listen to with sympathy and, if possible, would incorporate. I hope that that will answer to a certain extent the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
There is one aspect of this matter on which I think there is need for the utmost frankness and about which I do not want there to be a possibility of doubt. When I had negotiations on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus, some time ago, we discussed the possibility of law and order being reserved to the Governor for as long as the Governor thought necessary. That was some time ago and, as hon. Members on this side of the Committee have pointed out, a great many atrocities have taken place since then. I know only too well the full extent of the conspiracy which has since been unearthed.
That being so, I made it perfectly clear at the time I was explaining to the House the terms of reference under which Lord Radcliffe would operate, that law and order must, for the whole currency of the constitution, be reserved to the Governor or Her Majesty's Government. I do not believe that any responsible Government would come to a different conclusion in the circumstances of Cyprus with a mixed police force of Greeks and Turks, a vital security problem, the Communist Party in Cyprus being, as it is, the largest organised political party, and the crucial importance of Cyprus in the scheme of things. I am not prepared, and I do not believe that any responsible Minister would be prepared, to have law and order handed over after a year or so to an elected Minister in a country which, incidentally, through no fault of ours or right hon. Gentlemen opposite, has not had a constitution for more than a quarter of a century.
The Radcliffe proposals certainly deserve long and continuous discussion here. I hope that their author knows the gratitude which we all feel for the superb task which he has accomplished. I see that Mr. Averoff, in America yesterday, said that the Constitution was less liberal than the Constitution of Rhode Island before


the War of American Independence. I do not know on what he bases that rather sweeping statement.
Defence, external affairs and internal security would remain completely under the control of Her Majesty's Government, acting through the Governor. The Governor would be entitled to legislate by ordinance in reserved matters and would have ultimate power to decide whether Bills submitted by the Legislative Assembly trenched upon his reserved powers. It is true that his decision would there be final, but in all other respects, covering the vast majority of the activities of the island, the self-governing side would control its own affairs, subject to the written safeguards of "fundamental rights" which would be subject to ultimate appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Tribunal of Guarantees.
When we first started discussing a Constitution for Cyprus, I was told that if only Her Majesty's Government would agree in advance that there would be a Greek elected majority, all would be well. Any number of hon. Members opposite are on record as having said that that would be a major contribution. I always said that until we could see the picture as a whole, and until a skilled and impartial hand had worked out Turkish guarantees, it would be impossible to give that undertaking.
Now a Greek elected majority is promised in this Constitution, with rights promised for the Turks, and I have yet to see that it has made very much practical difference to the reception of the Constitution in circles, where, we were told, it would make all the difference if that concession were made. None the less, we are proceeding with the drafting of constitutional instruments and all other steps in the hope—and something more than the hope, in the belief—that we shall be able before very long to see some practical action taken in this constitutional matter.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) opened the debate in a speech which was understanding and helpful to those of us who have direct responsibilities in administration and in trying to find a way to solve this most intractable problem. He said—and it is perfectly true—that the Opposition had planned to have a debate without knowing that it would coincide with the debate at

the United Nations. He also said that we should stick to realities. I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have stuck to realities throughout the debate.
Perhaps I can make an exception in the case of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who painted a rather ludicrous picture of my relations with Sir John Harding, a rather fantastic flight of fancy. When, with everybody's support and gratitude, the hon. Member was working in Cyprus to try to bring about a settlement, he was nicknamed by everybody, in a friendly way, "The Dove"—the dove of peace. I think that even doves should come to earth from time to time, and I would commend that advice to the hon. Member.
To the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I would say that our policy is based upon realities. No considerations of pride, or of previous statements, or anything of that kind, would stand in the way of our adopting any policy which we think is the right one under the circumstances. But our policy must be based upon reality and not fantasy—upon things as they are and not as the Opposition like to think they are.
The first thing that has emerged has been a general recognition by most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Phillips Price) called the Grivas gangs must first be suppressed. Nobody can say when that task will be completed. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South is quite right in saying that there is something of Enosis rather than E.O.K.A. in every Cypriot. I do not deny that, but that does not mean that the great majority of the people of Cyprus are not desperately anxious to be free of the leadership of the terrorists who are intimidating them. With the progressive capture or destruction of those terrorists—and here I should like to say that the security forces have done a wonderful job—we are moving towards a situation when we can claim that tranquillity has been restored, and can take action upon that assumption.
The second reality which has emerged has been the general recognition by hon. Members on both sides of the importance of the Turkish side of the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said


that the Turkish problem did not rear its head until the tripartite talks took place. That is completely untrue. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, whom we respect so much, was a little less than fair to the Turks, whom he knows so well, when he dismissed the idea of integral self-determination as being a foolish dream. None of us wants to see the partition of Cyprus; that is obviously not the best solution. But we would be very foolish if we did not recognise that we may have to come to that solution. I very much hope that it will not come about, but I hope that it is not lost sight of by anybody that serious people like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall), who take an interest in all these matters, are putting forward suggestions of detail as to how such a partition might be brought about.
Suggestions which have been made have not been pushed home today, and I am very glad that that is so. It has been suggested that the Turks themselves have a considerable share of responsibility for the troubles which have come upon the island. We know quite well that when the regrettable riots took place in Turkey, at the time of the tripartite talks, not a Greek was killed. In the riots which have taken place in Cyprus, however, 17 Turks have been killed, of whom nine were Turkish policemen.
I hope that the hon. Member for Swindon will not give further currency to the monstrous suggestion that the British Government or the Government of Cyprus either encourage or welcome communal strife. That is a gross slander. What we have said—and what the Governor has repeatedly said—is that terrorism is contagious, and that if there are continual murders of Turkish policement there are almost bound to be violent reactions.
When the Governor sent his warning to the editors of two newspapers—one an English and one a Turkish newspaper—Halkin Sesi, the Turkish newspaper said:
It is our duty to help the situation by doing what the highest authority in the country considers desirable.
The hon. Member also asked whether I knew anything of threats that Greeks living in Turkey might be persecuted in the future. I know of no such threats, end I am very glad to know of the

friendly personal relations which exist between the Patriarch and the Governor-Mayor of Istanbul. My feeling is that by far the best way of helping the Greeks in Turkey would be for the Greek Government to come out in the open and condemn terrorism in Cyprus.
As to the contribution that Turkey has made to a calm study of constitutional proposals, I think the Committee knows what my views are and how grateful we all ought to be. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) spoke of the Turkish auxiliary police and quoted from a newspaper which referred to a considerable number of felons. I know of only one isolated instance of a special constable having had a conviction and I think it would be monstrous to apply that description to the auxiliary police as a whole.
I have been asked a number of questions about Press censorship. No one likes Press censorship and, like the Governor, I shall be delighted when it is possible to lift all the censorship rules and all the restrictions on the freedom of the Press. The Governor has served in many trouble spots and he tells me— believe him—that he has never encountered a situation in which irresponsible comments by the Press could more quickly and easily lead to the risk of loss of life. Comment has been made on the Press laws. As my hon. Friend said today, the Governor has agreed in principle to an appeal to the courts against any action he takes under the Press laws in respect of newspaper proprietors and others.
I have also been asked a number of questions about an article which appeared today in the Manchester Guardian. The Under-Secretary did not answer them in detail, not that he could not answer, but because I had arranged with him that I would answer the questions in every individual case which might arise. The first is the case of Miss Lambrou. That case was fully looked into by the Governor himself. Mr. Benenson, who wrote the article, discussed it with the Governor. The conclusions of the Governor, after investigation, is that her allegations were unfounded. I have all the clinical details of this unfortunate case and there seems very little doubt—in fact, no doubt—that what happened was what in clinical language is called


a septic abortion. I am quite ready to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT all the information I have got and am quite prepared to make a fuller statement in the House if anyone finds that in the circulated Answer any aspect of the question has not been fully answered. I do not think that I can do more than that.
As for Mr. Christoforou, I cannot comment on the result of a court case, but I understand that that complaint was brought before a judge and the case dismissed because of insufficient evidence. I shall also answerr in greater detail on that case if hon. Members care to put a Question to me. I suggest that they put a Question for Written Answer, or, if they like, for Oral Answer, in the next few days. I can assure them that these and other cases will be swiftly and fully examined by the Governor, who is anxious to maintain for himself and for the Administration the high standards that he has followed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) dealt with the case of Mr. Christodoulides and quoted the exact reason why Judge Bernard Shaw, in Cyprus, released that prisoner. I hope that, on reflection, it will be recognised that that was further proof that the rule, of law prevails in a Colony like Cyprus, despite the tragic difficulties in which the Governor and his staff are working.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, while referring to the emergency regulations, asked me about the regulation under which the permission of the Attorney-General is necessary for prosecutions of servants of the Crown. I wish that that regulation was not necessary. I hope it will not be necessary indefinitely, of course, but, unhappily, there is evidence that lawyers purporting to act for such prisoners have been trying to get the names of people who have given information to security officers. That would put in danger people who are anxious to bring to an end the terrorism under which their fellow Cypriots are now living.
I was also asked a number of questions about Archbishop Makarios. I have repeatedly made the position of the Government plain in this matter. I do not in the least apologise for the deportation order against the Archbishop. When the Archbishop was deported doors were not permanently slammed and no one talked

about exile for life. But I do not regard it as unreasonable that the Archbishop should either give a firm denunciation of violence or say that violence should come to an end, or at least give some indication that he proposes quite definitely to say so in the very near future. I do not believe that any reasonable Government, faced with our task, could ask for less than that.
While the Committee is debating this matter the debate has been taking place in the United Nations. I think it is fair to say that there has been a growing recognition both in this country and outside it of the strength of the British case. As the Committee knows, there was evidence to the effect that there would be a stepping up of terrorist activities in the week or two before the U.N.O. meeting, to give the impression that this was a nation-wide revolt against British tyranny. A notice has been sent to me by the Governor, following that general order by Grivas, which was found in an unopened envelope enclosing correspondence in Grivas's own handwriting. It began:
Order.
I wish to see you displaying all your activity for work in these days when the debate in U.N.O. is about to commence. This is a national necessity and you must not spare sacrifices or labour or dangers.
The leader, Dighenis.
Facts like these have more and more convinced a growing number of people outside this country, as well as within it, that we are dealing here not with a genuine national movement but with a cruel conspiracy which has taken advantage of the widespread love of Greece and of that spark of Enosis in everyone's breast in Cyprus, which I recognise is there, and has perverted it to such cruel ends.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this negative aspect of his speech will lead many people in this country to assume that he is more interested in making his case than in attempting to find an honourable settlement?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will answer that on another occasion, for I understand that I have only one minute more.
I was asked a question about the role which N.A.T.O. might play in this great matter. We do not, of course, forget that we are signatories of the undertaking to use the N.A.T.O. machinery of conciliation in disputes between N.A.T.O. Powers. We signed that undertaking and mean to abide by it. But we cannot forget that in the Greek Press of 12th January the Foreign Minister of Greece claimed that this would not apply to the Cypriot dispute which was already before another international body.

We do not rule out the good offices of any of our friends in helping to bring to an end the present situation in Cyprus, but it must be brought to an end on a basis of reality and on a basis of the recognition of our own just rights, the Turkish case and the facts of history and geography.

Question put, That Subhead B.1., Cyprus (Grant in Aid) be reduced by £100:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 307.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lewis, Arthur


Balrd, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.


Balfour, A.
Fienburgh, W.
Lipton, Marcus


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Finch, H. J.
Logan, D. G.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacDermot, Niall


Beswick, Frank
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gibson, C. W.
McGovern, J.


Blackburn, F.
Gooch, E. G.
Molnnes, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Anthony
McLeavy, Frank


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Mahon, Simon


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Boyd, T. C.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Brockway, A. F.
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mayhew, C. P.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, Sir F.


Burke, W. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Burton, Miss F. E.
Holman, P.
Mitchlson, G. R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holmes, Horace
Monslow, W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holt, A. F.
Moody, A. S.


Callaghan, L. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Carmichael, J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mort, D. L.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)



Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J. H.
Moss, R.


Chapman, W. D.
Hubbard, T. F.
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, F. W.


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Orbach, M.


Cronin, J. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oswald, T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, B.
Owen, W. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Daines, P.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paton, John


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, T. F.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pentland, N.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Kenyon, C.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Dye, S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, A. R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Edelman, M.
Lawson, G. M.
Pryde, D. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Ledger, R. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.




Randall, H. E.
Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Rankin, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Redhead, E. C.
Stones, W. (Consett)
West, D. G.


Reeves, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Reid, William
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wigg, George


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swingler, S. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, Frederick


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, David (Neath)


Ross, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Royle, C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Short, E. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thornton, E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Richard


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Skeffington, A. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Usborne, H. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.



Sorensen, R. W.
Wade, D. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.


Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Aitken, W. T.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cunningham, Knox
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Currie, G. B. H.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Dance, J. C. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Armstrong, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hesketh, R. F.


Ashton, H.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Atkins, H. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Baldwin, A. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Barber, Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hope, Lord John


Barlow, Sir John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hornby, R. P.


Barter, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Howard, John (Test)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Errington, Sir Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Erroll, F. J.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bidgood, J. C.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hurd, A. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hyde, Montgomery


Black, C. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Body, R. F.
Fort, R.
Iremonger, T. L.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Foster, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Braine, B. R.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson, Eric (Biackley)


Biaithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gibson-Watt, D.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Brooman-White, R. C.
Glover, D.
Kaberry, D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Godber, J. B.
Keegan, D.


Bryan, P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gough, C. F. H.
Kerr, H. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gower, H. R.
Kirk, P. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lagden, G. W.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Campbell, Sir David
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Robert
Green, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Channon, Sir Henry
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Leavey, J. A.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leburn, W. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Linstead, Sir H. N.







Llewellyn, D. T.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Osborne, C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Page, R. G.
Storey, S.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Studholme, Sir Henry


McAdden, S. J.
Partridge, E.
Summers, Sir Spenoer


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Peyton, J. W. W.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McKibbin, A. J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Teeling, W.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pitman, I. J.
Temple, J. M.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pott, H. P.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.)
Thorneyeroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Profumo, J. D.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ramsden, J. E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Turner, H. F. L.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Marshall, Douglas
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mathew, R.
Ronson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wall, Major Patrick


Mawby, R. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Medlicott, Sir Frank
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Moore, Sir Thomas
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Webbe, Sir H.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharples, R. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Neave, Airey
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Soames, Capt. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woollam, John Victor


Nugent, G. R. H.
Speir, R. M.



O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Oaksbott.

Original Question again proposed.
It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th February].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Question again proposed:—
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making new provision, among other matters, with respect to contributions out of the Exchequer and by local authorities in respect of housing accommodation provided or improved in Scotland and enabling Scottish local authorities to provide housing accommodation and other development in relief of the needs of districts other than their own, it is expedient—

A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses Incurred by the Secretary of State in paying to a local authority, or in certain cases to a development corporation,—

(a) in respect of any approved house an annual contribution for a period of sixty years of the appropriate amount hereinafter specified, that is to say—

(i) in the case of a house provided by a local authority other than a house such as is mentioned under the four next following sub-heads, twenty-four pounds;
(ii) in the case of a house provided by a local authority in accordance with arrangements made with the approval of the Secretary of State as being desirable by reason of special circumstances for the provision of housing accommodation in any area for persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, thirty pounds;
(iii) in the case of a house provided by a local authority by way of housing accommodation for the agricultural population, thirty-six pounds;
(iv) in the case of a house provided by a local authority in pursuance of any overspill agreement, forty-two pounds;
(v) in the case of a house provided by a local authority, being an exporting authority, in the district of another local authority, forty-two pounds;
(vi) in the case of a house provided by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made tinder section eighty of the Act of 1950. forty-two pounds;
(vii) in the case of a house provided by a housing association under arrangements made under the said section eighty, such one of the amounts mentioned in subheads (i), (ii) and (iii) of this head as the Secretary of State may determine to be appropriate;

(b) in respect of any approved house which is a flat contained in a block of flats, an additional annual contribution for a period of sixty years of such amount as may be determined by the Secretary of State to be necessary to secure the amortisation over the said period of an amount equal to two-thirds of the sum, if any, by which the cost of the house exceeds such sum as may be so determined to represent the average cost of approved houses in Scotland (exclusive of such houses as may be so determined) at the time of the approval by the Secretary of State of the proposals in accordance with which the house is provided;
(c) in respect of any approved house (not being a house provided by a development corporation or the town council of a large burgh) an additional annual contribution for a period of sixty years of such amount as the Secretary of State considers just and reasonable having regard to the remoteness of the site of that house or the sites of other houses from centres of supply of building labour and material;
(d) contributions towards the expenditure incurred by a local authority in connection with—

(i) the acquisition or appropriation of land situated within the area to which any town development scheme relates, or the clearing or preliminary development of land so situated, or
(ii) the provision for the purposes of any town development scheme of any water supply or sewerage service,
being contributions of such amounts and payable in such cases, over such periods and subject to such conditions, as may be determined by or under regulations made under any provision of the said Act of the present Session relating to town development schemes;
B. To authorise the payment out at moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in paying to the Scottish Special Housing Association,—

(a) in respect of any house (as defined for the purposes of any provision of the said Act of the present Session relating to the said Association) provided by them an annual contribution for a period of sixty years of an amount, in each year, equal to the annual contribution, or, as the case may be, the sum of the annual contributions, which would have been payable in that year under subsection (7) of section eighty-four and sections eighty-six, eighty-eight and eighty-nine of the Act of 1950, and any provision of the said Act of the present Session providing for the payment of Exchequer contributions in respect of houses provided by a local authority, if the house had been a house provided by a local authority;
(b) such further contributions as the Secretary of State may determine;
C. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to he so paid;


D. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.
In this Resolution—
Act of 1950" means the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950;
approved house" means a new house which is—

(a) provided by a local authority in the exercise of their power to provide housing accommodation, or by a development corporation otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made under section eighty of the Act of 1950, and in respect of which the proposals after-mentioned, accompanied by such information as is required by the Secretary of State as to the estimated cost of erection of the house, were or are received by the Secretary of State on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, or
(b) provided by a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made under the said section eighty on or after the said first day of August,
being a house for which proposals have been submitted to the Secretary of State and have been approved by him for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session;
exporting authority" means a local authority, being a local authority for a district which has a need for housing accommodation which cannot in the opinion of the Secretary of State be properly and fully met by the provision of housing accommodation within the district, who propose to make or have made arrangements for the meeting of that need, in whole or in part, by the provision of housing accommodation outside their district;
overspill agreement" means an agreement entered into between an exporting authority and another local authority or a development corporation for the provision by that other authority, or, as the case may be, that corporation, of housing accommodation to meet, in whole or in part, the needs of the district of the exporting authority;
town development scheme" means a scheme made by a local authority and approved by the Secretary of State, and containing proposals for development to be carried out in conjunction with the provision of housing accommodation in the district of that local authority in pursuance of arrangements made by another local authority for meeting, in whole or in part, any need of their district for housing accommodation which in the opinion of the Secretary of State cannot be properly and fully met by the provision of such accommodation within their district:—[Mr. Maclavy.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: When this Resolution was put last night we sought to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland some questions, and also to

make a few remarks about it, but were stopped, of course, because the rule had not been suspended. In the first place, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought that he would get this long and very complicated Financial Resolution through the Committee without any discussion at all, and I can only assume that that action was taken in order to dampen down discussion. The Secretary of State evidently does not want too much said about it.
The first thing that strikes us about this Money Resolution is that it seems strictly to limit the extent to which we should be able to discuss in the Scottish Grand Committee the details of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, or even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) reminds me, to move Amendments to some of these detailed proposals. What is the position? Can we, in fact, move any Amendments at all, if we pass this Financial Resolution, to the detailed proposals about subsidies? Can we move anything at all about subsidies? Can we move anything concerning the period of 60 years, which is very specifically stated?
We would like to discuss some of these things in the Scottish Grand Committee, but our fear is that the right hon. Gentleman is at least endeavouring, though he has not yet been successful, to restrict discussion which this subject merits and which the people of Scotland will certainly expect it to receive. Referring solely to the provisions for housing subsidies, I should like to know to what extent we will be able to discuss these provisions once we have passed this Financial Resolution.
The final part of paragraph A, if that is right—I do not know how one reads this; one has to be a sort of Californian lawyer to do so, and the trouble is that we are not in California—deals with town development. Once again, it seems to us that this Financial Resolution restricts very considerably the extent to which we shall be able to discuss Amendments in regard to town development.
10.15 p.m.
Great concern was expressed yesterday about the provision of industry. Questions were asked when the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State


was winding up, and I am bound to say that I do not consider that he clarified the situation very much. For instance, when my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked whether the Exchequer grants under Clause 14 would include factories, the hon. Gentleman replied,
No, not factories.
That is what he said, and that does not seem to us to be very satisfactory. We should certainly like to discuss that. The hon. Gentleman went on to explain how, under Clause 25, local planning authorities could for the first time undertake the building of factories, but earlier he had said that this was not included in the financial provisions. Where, then, is it included? We ought to have some information about it. He said:
Under Clause 25 local planning authorities can for the first time undertake factory building, the cost of acquisition of which and the clearance and primary development of sites qualifies for grant",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1957 Vol. 565, c. 156–7.]
I am not certain where it qualifies. Does it qualify for grant under this Money Resolution? I have read this Resolution; it might be possible, of course, that it qualifies under paragraph C, where it says:
To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid".
I do not know: I am not a lawyer. Does this include the expenditure about which we were greatly concerned yesterday?
We want some guarantee about this. The concern expressed was felt not only on this side of the House during the Second Reading debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned about the provisions of factories, and it was generally admitted that the success of the Bill depended upon that. We must have some assurances from the right hon. Gentleman that we can, when this Bill reaches Standing Committee, put down Amendments and discuss these matters, although we have passed this Money Resolution.
I will not say any more now, because I am sure some of my hon. Friends have something to say. In conclusion, I will repeat what I said at the beginning. The

right hon. Gentleman really must not expect to get away with a Resolution like this without any endeavour being made to explain it. After all, two pages of fairly complicated legal and financial jargon ought to be explained in language for the layman, because that it what most of us are. I suggest that when he comes to the House again with a Resolution like this, he should treat us with some courtesy and give us that explanation which we expect and require if we are to know exactly what it is we are doing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland is deeply indebted to us for raising certain questions and asking him to supply further explanation of the Bill before we pass this Money Resolution. As far as we can gather, the procedure is that the Bill goes to a Committee. After it has been in Committee for a considerable time, the Guillotine is applied and there is no further discussion on it. Then later, after the Guillotine has been imposed, the Government suddenly decide to change their policy. This is what we want to avoid. We want to save the time of the House, to save the time of the Scottish Grand Committee, to save the time of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to save the time of the local authorities, by getting clear and explicit answers to some of these questions now.
I would not have detained the Committee at this late hour, but certain questions are being asked in Ayrshire. As you know, Sir Charles, in Ayrshire we have certain difficulties, because only my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and myself are able to ask questions which need to be answered and the questions appertaining to this Financial Resolution. I understand that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is out of action, it is impossible for you, Sir Charles, in the Chair, to take part in our discussions, and it is impossible for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) to take part because he has a majority of only 167. The local authority in his area is asking questions, but although the hon. Member goes into the Division Lobby he cannot come and put the questions on behalf of the local authorities in Central Ayrshire. So I have to do it, not only for the burghs in South Ayrshire, but for the burghs in Central


Ayrshire, like Kilwinning, Irvine and Stewarton. In the absence of the hon. Member. I shall do my best to elicit the information from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Among the questions perturbing the local authorities in Ayrshire is the question of the money payment that they are likely to receive. The Members for the various constituencies in Ayrshire have had certain questions put to them which require to be answered, and we are now passing on the questions which, we hope, will be answered.
I have, for example, a letter from the county clerk of Ayrshire, who puts the difficulties not only of the county council but of various burghs and small burghs in the county. These local authorities take their duties far more seriously than seemed to be indicated yesterday by the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), who talked about the complacency of local authorities. I assure you, Sir Charles, and I am sure you will agree with me, that local authorities in Ayrshire are not by any means complacent. They are anxious to know how the terms of the Money Resolution will be interpreted in terms of hard cash.
Although the hon. Member for Pollok is, I understand, a displaced person. and lives in one of the burghs in Ayrshire, he has absolutely no right to talk about Ayrshire as if the local authorities were not very enthusiastic about the problems of local government and adopted anything like an indifferent attitude to the question of how the increase in rates of interest is likely to affect subsidies and the grants that local authorities are likely to receive under the Resolution.
I have to ask the Secretary of State to reply to the question which is contained in my communication from the Clerk to the Ayrshire County Council. He states that:
In Ayrshire, after the current housing programme is completed, we know of over 1,200 families still to be rehoused: the position is constantly changing—usually against us.
The assurance that we would like from the Secretary of State is that under the provisions of this Financial Resolution, the position will not constantly change

still worse against the County Council of Ayrshire.
We are told:
Taking the four-apartment house as the type of which we build the greatest number, the reduction in subsidy is £18 5s. per house per year for sixty years."—
that is, until the year 2017. Surely, if we are discussing the terms of a financial arrangement which is to continue until the year 2017, we are justified in taking half an hour to discuss it. Indeed, the fact that we are deciding the fate until the year 2017 of the small burghs of Ayrshire should have been an incentive for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to be present to protect them. The clerk says:
On our known needs of 1,200 houses the annual reduction in subsidy would therefore be about £22,000. Our concern at this position can well be understood.
He goes on to say:
With a substantial number of houses still to erect they"—
that is, the county council—
are of opinion that the cuts in subsidy as well as being much too severe are also premature.
So the Clerk to the Ayrshire County Council takes the same position in relation to the Bill as the hon. Member for Pollok. The hon. Member for Pollok agrees in principle with the Bill, which will raise rents, but he thinks it is premature, and the clerk says that however much they may be justified the cuts in subsidy are premature.
I should like some assurance from the Secretary of State that the housing programme in Ayrshire is not to suffer as a result of our passing this Resolution. In Ayrshire, we are very anxious to proceed with the housing drive. Even the most Conservative of small burghs in Ayrshire has not taken up the position of, for example, the small burgh of Gourock. There, the people have been so perturbed about the precarious situation of housing subsidies as affected, among other things, by this Resolution that they have said, "We are going on strike and we shall not build houses at all." That is one of the most important burghs in the constituency of the Secretary of State. The start to the hard new housing drive the right hon. Gentleman was talking about yesterday is a sit-down strike. I hope that the Secretary of State will give re-


assurances to our small burghs even if he cannot reassure his own.
I am very glad to see the Solicitor-General for Scotland here—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Lord Advocate."]—because I should rather like an explanation of paragraph A (iii) of the Resolution, which says that
in the case of a house provided by a local authority by way of housing accommodation for the agricultural population 
the subsidy is £36. As one who represents an agricultural area, I should like to know why the subsidy is fixed at £36 for housing for the agricultural population.
Indeed, I should like to know what the agricultural population is. What exactly is the agricultural population of Ayrshire? Why are some people in the county to get the benefit of a £36 subsidy while others in the same agricultural county are to get benefit of only £24? What I cannot understand is why, if all the arguments which have been brought forward to justify this Resolution are sound, there is not a reduction in the subsidy in the agricultural areas. I cannot draw a hard and fast line between agricultural and industrial people.
Who can be classified as agricultural people and who can be classified as industrial? Perhaps the hon. Member for Pollok would enlighten me on this. He used to be a constituent of mine. There are certain anomalies, which, of course, he skated over yesterday. He now represents an industrial area. However, I should like a member of the Government to justify the payment of a £36 subsidy for a house on one side of the street and a £24 subsidy for somebody living opposite to it. There are glaring anomalies, and we hope to enlighten the hon. Member for Pollok upon them during the Committee stage.
10.30 p.m.
I should like an attempt to be made to clear up the position about the subsidy for the agricultural population. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate, because I should like to know when a member of the agricultural community qualifies for the £36 subsidy or the £24 subsidy. When one speaks of the agricultural population, one immediately thinks of the farm and of the cowman. We all agree that it is justifiable to grant

the £36 subsidy in order to rehouse the cowman.
No one talks about the rich paying the rates in the agricultural areas. All that argument breaks down when we come to this figure of £36. If we are justified in paying the £36 subsidy for the cowman, why are we not entitled to think that the same figure is justified for rehousing the milkman? What is the moral, financial and commonsense justification for saying to the cowman, "We will give you a subsidy of £36 to rehouse you," and then saying to the milkman, "You belong to a lower class of humanity. You are among the richer section of the community, and should have only £24"?
An attempt may be made to say that people who live in small burghs do not represent the agricultural population, but there are people in those areas who work on farms. Are we entitled to subsidise to the extent of £36 the man who drives the tractor, and who may live in a small burgh, and then say to the man who lives in the same place, and drives a lorry on the other side of the hedge from the tractor, "You are entitled to only £24"? How are these anomalies justified? Is the man who repairs the tractor entitled to the £24 or the £36 benefit.
I do not notice anyone on the Treasury Bench jumping to his feet and attempting to answer these questions. What about the unfortunate school teacher in an agricultural area? Surely, the agricultural population is entitled to be educated. One of the difficulties is to attract teachers to these areas. How can we do that if we penalise the patriotic teacher who volunteers to go there by charging him so much more on his rent?
In South Ayrshire there are farmers who have arranged to get what is called the agricultural subsidy for their sons. Some of these farmers' sons enjoy a very substantial income. They are at the receiving end of the other kind of subsidies for which there is no means test, yet the person who is not subsidised is suffering again by the allocation of this subsidy. Therefore, I ask the Lord Advocate to explain exactly how these £36 houses will be allocated. I know that all this causes immense difficulties in the rural areas.
Suppose that a county authority decides that the whole of its population is agricultural and, therefore, puts in a claim for


the £36 instead of the £24. I can see the time coming when we may have a Secretary of State for Scotland from this side of the Committee. He will immediately raise the subsidy from £24 to £36 by simply accepting the commonsense definition of the agricultural population. I maintain that there must be included in the agricultural population everybody who, directly or indirectly, is associated with agriculture. Once we apply common sense to the problem we want to know exactly where we are. We want to know the position throughout Scotland, because the greater part of Scotland is agricultural, not industrial.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) has thanked the Government for keeping the agricultural subsidy at £36, but there is an anomaly in the Bill. If the Government are justified in arguing in this way there has been a substantial hole in the argument for the Bill. There are certain other anomalies. Yesterday, we had the case put that rents in Dumfriesshire are to be much bigger than the rents in Ayrshire. In one of the more loosely drawn Clauses of the Bill, the Secretary of State is given powers to give higher subsidies to people who move from one part of the country to another. If the mining population of Dumfriesshire decides to emigrate to the more enlightened Ayrshire, does that mean that the Ayrshire County Council will be entitled to a greater subsidy?
The hon. Member for Pollok knows that the village of New Cumnock is on the borderline between Dumfriesshire and Ayrshire. Men work in the same seam and eat their meals together and it will be found that one miner will be paying three times more rent than the other as a result of anomalies in this Financial Resolution. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the opportunity to patch up the Bill now, before it goes through its later stages.
There is a little town called Stewarton, in central Ayrshire. Are the people of that burgh part of the agricultural population or not? Will they have the benefit of the £36 subsidy or of the £24 subsidy? I do not think that Stewarton can be ruled out on the ground that because it has a creamery it is an industrial area. Will the people in the

creamery have the benefit of the £36 subsidy, or will they have the £24 subsidy? Will they be classified as industrial or as agricultural?
I put these points because they all come within the ambit of this Financial Resolution. The Bill is not so simple as it looks. It is not quite the beautiful, generous donation in respect of housing that some hon. Members think it is. I want to ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State about overspill. We are most worried about overspill in Ayrshire, because no one wants to overspill to us—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Oh, yes.

Mr. Hughes: Except in one part of the county.
I cannot understand why the Secretary of State should be so complacent about the financial arrangements to clear the slums of Glasgow. I read a speech of the Minister of State, who used to represent Pollok in this House. It was a ceremonial speech in which he announced the clearing of the slums of the Gorbals. I read it with a great deal of interest and thought that here we had some push and go—until I saw the time that that is to take. It is to take twenty years. There is complacency in getting so enthusiastic about housing and then announcing that the wonderful scheme for clearing the Gorbals is to take twenty years. I also understand that only 7,000 people are to be rehoused. That is only a small section of the population of Glasgow.

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to my peroration, Sir Charles. I know perorations are always in order; in fact, you look forward to them.
I suggest that we ought to take this opportunity to examine the financial implications of this Resolution in detail, because that would save us a great deal of trouble later.

Mr. William Ross: I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that perorations are always in order, provided that there are not too many in one speech.
I want, first, to protest against the inordinate length of this Financial Resolution. It is so long that it could have


been referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading. I am most disappointed that the Secretary of State did not see fit to explain the Resolution to us in detail. [Interruption.] If we are to have three speeches from the Government Front Bench that will be too much.

Mr. Willis: Does my hon. Friend not think that we should have present a representative of the Treasury, also, to explain the Resolution? After all, the Treasury is responsible for the money.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that about three o'clock someone at the Treasury may be sent for to explain the Resolution. The Secretary of State had a duty to explain it and also to explain why the Resolution is in this form. All I can suggest is that probably he read the speech he made yesterday and thought that he had better not make another tonight.
The Resolution goes into meticulous detail. The very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire was able to make his speech and keep in order shows that much. We can seldom get very far on a Financial Resolution and keep in order. Instead of giving us the usual general covering Resolution, the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to go into the detail of every conceivable type of house that could be built under the Bill, and give us the actual figure.
That means that if we pass this Money Resolution tonight we may be able to discuss it in Committee, but we shall not be able to amend it upwards. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State, in presenting the Money Resolution in this form, to prevent the Scottish Grand Committee acting in such a way as properly to discuss it and show that there might conceivably be something wrong—in other words, that there may well have been a mistake?
10.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire mentioned the question of the differential of £12 between the house for general need and the agricultural house. That differential has always existed. But there is something very much more radical in this change, in that we have for general need a subsidy of £24, whereas with regard to overspill the Money Resolution says:

(iv) in the case of a house provided by a local authority in pursuance of any overspill agreement, forty-two pounds.
That means that if the town of Kilmarnock, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. is hoping to take anything up to 15,000 people from Glasgow for overspill, clears its own slums, by this Money Resolution Kilmarnock is to get a subsidy of £24 per house, but if it undertakes to clear the slums of Glasgow it is to get a subsidy of £42.
Surely it would be possible, in the Scottish Grand Committee, to pursue the argument that one slum is as bad as another to the people who live in them, and that the urgency of rehousing is such that the subsidy should be the same. The framing of this Money Resolution in this way, means that this is the only time that I can effectively protest against this anomaly. If this goes through unchanged tonight, it means that Kilmarnock will never get any more under the Bill than £24 per house.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I point out that there is a further anomaly? Moscow will get only £36 compared with Kilmarnock.

Mr. Ross: Yes, they will only get £36 in Moscow, provided that the housing is for an agricultural worker. That is another anomaly.
I am very glad to see that the Lord Advocate is here—

Miss Margaret Herbison: He is hiding.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that he is hiding. I think that, originally, he did not intend to come to this debate, as a tribute to our powers of elucidation of this legal jargon, or else in the belief that any intervention by him would lead not to enlightenment but to confusion.
We must be given considerably more information about what this Money Resolution means. It begins by saying:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session …
and then goes on:
… in respect of housing accommodation provided or improved in Scotland …
I should like to know where in the Money Resolution—indeed, where in the Bill—is there any reference to money being paid for improving housing accommodation. The Government have been meticulous;


they have, I think, put in something which is not necessary. They want to cover themselves while, at the same time, gagging and limiting the Committee when it eventually comes to deal with the Bill.
There is another point on which we want enlightenment. Paragraph A (d) of the Money Resolution refers to
contributions towards the expenditure incurred by a local authority in connection with …
the acquisition of land and the provision of water and sewerage. We want very much more enlightenment than we had last night as to what is meant and what is covered by that—the extent of the grant envisaged.
I think that a suggestion was made last night by the Joint Under-Secretary that it would be 75 per cent., leaving 25 per cent. to be paid by the local authorities. Does this in any way tie us to that formula? If it does, we obviously cannot accept it. Last night the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke of the kind of place he envisaged undertaking this work; a dying area, with practically no, or little, valuation at all—maybe a small burgh. How can such places provide for an incoming population of perhaps 20,000 and pay 25 per cent. towards these services? I hope that we shall get information on that—and in asking for this information we are also protecting the interests of hon. Members opposite.
We have been told that new powers are to be given to local authorities in respect of building factories and work of that sort. I think that Clauses 25 and 17 of the Bill refer to that. I have looked through the Money Resolution carefully and have not found any reference to moneys being provided for the use of this new power. Reference is made to the different types of houses, overspill and the rest, but never once is mention made of industrial development, never once does it mention factories. It is no use having these Clauses in the Bill and suggesting great new development if no money is to be provided.
We want to protect the Government from themselves. It is not the first time that they have brought forward a very clever Money Resolution and have later had to take it away and bring back a new one, because they have forgotten some-

thing, or have been persuaded in Committee that they could not do what they sought because the Money Resolution would not allow them to. We want more information. In the meantime, I will reserve further comment until I hear the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland—I am quite sure that we shall require all three properly to explain this to us.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The point on which I want an explanation I can, I think, put more briefly than my hon. Friends have put theirs. After all, they had the initial chance of clearing the ground, and have left me with just the one small but very real point. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is a perfectly legitimate one, and one on which the Secretary of State should vouchsafe an explanation.
It will be seen that there is some overlapping between paragraphs A (a, ii) and (a, iii) of the Money Resolution. Subparagraph (iii) relates to the case of a house provided for the agricultural population, £36. The question I wish to raise is this. Is agriculture not an industry? I want to know what the difference is between sub-paragraph (ii) and sub-paragraph (iii). I want to know to what class each applies. Do they not overlap?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about fishing?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I should hate to mix up food, agriculture and fisheries. I am always trying to separate fisheries from food and agriculture. The Government treat them as if fisheries were not some kind of food, and they say, "Food, Agriculture and Fisheries". My hon. Friends are trying to induce me to talk about fisheries, but I am not going to do so. I am talking about agriculture.
Is agriculture not an industry? Subparagraph (ii) is drawn as if agriculture were not an industry. It relates to
persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry. …
But is agriculture not an industry? Is it not included in that generic term "industry"? Apparently not, judging from the manner in which this is drafted.
Sub-paragraph (iii) refers to
…the case of a house provided … by way of housing accommodation for the agricultural population".


Are they not obviously and logically the same thing? Is there not a case of overlapping there, and is there not an obvious need for the redrafting of this provision?

Mr. Ross: I would advise my hon. and learned Friend not to pursue that, because if he gets agriculture put into the industry provision he will find that it only gets £30 instead of £36.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has apparently not considered these details with the care he usually devotes to the construction of Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Ross: Why?

Mr. Hughes: He will see that subparagraph (i) provides for £24; sub-paragraph (ii) provides for £30; gradually creeping up the ladder, sub-paragraph (iii) provides for £36, sub-paragraph (iv) provides for £42 and then (v) and (vi) still remain at £42.

Mr. Ross: I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to interrupt again? If he looks at sub-paragraph (ii) he will find that for a house provided to meet the urgent needs of industry the amount is £30, whereas agriculture gets £36. He had better keep agriculture in its own sub-paragraph if he wants it to keep its amount separate from industry.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I agree that industry seems to be at something of a disadvantage there. But I am not on the question of the amount so much as the question of whether there is overlapping.
May I put it in this way? My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that sub-paragraph (ii) deals with houses for persons coming into an area to meet the urgent needs of industry but the question I want the Secretary of State to answer is this: is agriculture not an industry? Are not persons who will, under sub-paragraph (iii), occupy houses provided for the accommodation of the agricultural population exactly the same persons as those connoted by sub-paragraph (ii), namely, persons coming to an area to meet the urgent needs of industry?
I am not asking the Secretary of State to enter into the mathematics of it, as my hon. Friend sought to induce me to do. I am bad at mathematics, and I am not going to discuss mathematics. I am on the construction of these sub-paragraphs. In my submission, they overlap.
There is something radically wrong with the drafting. They should be redrafted.

11.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison: Surely my hon. and learned Friend is arguing for a higher subsidy rate, for the £30 for all houses?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right. If I were to enter into mathematics, that is what I would be saying. But I am so bad at mathematics that I prefer to leave it to someone like her, who is much better at it. As a lawyer, I am content to confine myself to the construction of these two sub-paragraphs. It seems that they overlap, and should be taken back and redrafted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that there is also an anomaly with the fisherman who goes out to fish in Icelandic waters, who braves the dangers of the sea—that he should be subsidised to the extent of £24 while the agricultural worker who produces barley for whiskey gets £36?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I certainly agree it is a great injustice, because it seems that the fisherman would come under sub-paragraph (ii)
persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry.
I submit that fishing is quite entitled to it, but cannot be included under the term "agricultural population." Clearly, they come under the expression "industry."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my hon. and learned Friend think that there should be a bigger subsidy to the man who produces the chips than the man who produces the fish?

Mr. Hector Hughes: That is a very nice question. Should the man who produces the ships—

Hon. Members: Chips.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. and learned Member could discuss this on the Bill, but not on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: If you look at the Money Resolution, Sir Gordon, you will see the words, in sub-paragraph (ii)
persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry.
My hon. Friend's question related to shipbuilders, who are obviously in industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is all right on the Bill, but not on the Financial Resolution.

Hon. Members: Chip builders—potato growers.

Mr. Hughes: That is another very nice point. There are two expressions in common circulation. One is "fish and chips" and the other is "fish and ships", and the shipbuilder surely comes within the term "people engaged in industry".

The Deputy-Chairman: That is all right on the Bill, but has nothing to do with money.

Mr. Hughes: But the money is provided for the people who live in these houses, and this sub-paragraph provides £30 for people engaged in industry. I am discussing people engaged in that part of industry which builds ships.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is arguable on the Bill, but not on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: But the words are in the Financial Resolution, though I bow to your Ruling, Sir Gordon. The Financial Resolution refers to "industry", and shipbuilding is clearly an industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: What hon. Members are arguing about is £30.

Mr. James H. Hoy: On a point of order. The Money Resolution states clearly that
in the case of a house provided by a local authority in accordance with arrangements made with the approval of the Secretary of State as being desirable by reason of special circumstances for the provision of housing accommodation in any area for persons coming to that area in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, thirty pounds".
Surely it is quite competent for my hon. and learned Friend to ask whether a particular type of industry is included and would qualify for the £30 grant.

The Deputy-Chairman: Not on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hoy: He is not arguing it. What my hon. and learned Friend is asking, and what, I think, would be quite in order, is whether that industry is covered by the Financial Resolution. If there were an urgent need, would it come within the Financial 'Resolution as drafted? Surely that is a question which is quite

in order and one on which we should expect a reply from the Secretary of State.

The Deputy-Chairman: Only the question of money is arguable on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Further to that point of order. I dislike putting these questions to the Chair, but we are discussing a Money Resolution which will affect hon. Members, on both sides, in the Amendments that they may be able to table in Committee. The quarrel that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends and I have with the Resolution is that it would seem unnecessarily to restrict us in the Amendments that we will be able to move in Committee.
My hon. Friends are urging the Secretary of State to take back the Money Resolution, for the reasons that some of them have given, so that another Resolution might be introduced to enable us to amend the Bill upstairs in Committee. If hon. Members are not able, at this point, to draw a comparison between the subsidies payable in respect of a house occupied by one type of worker and a house occupied by another, they will be unable to make a case for the withdrawal of the Money Resolution. That, I should have thought, was precisely what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was seeking to do.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member was doing that.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Perhaps I may put my argument briefly, Sir Gordon, in this way. In effect, I am asking the Secretary of State this question, as I have been asking it since I first rose to my feet: what is the meaning of the word "industry," in sub-paragraph (ii)? Surely that is quite relevant and permissible. I am asking him whether "industry" includes agriculture, because industry is referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) while agriculture is referred to in subparagraph (iii). If agriculture is an industry, then, in my submission, sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) overlap and should be taken back to be redrafted.
A little complication was introduced—and, I believe, quite relevantly introduced—by my hon. Friend, who talked about shipbuilding. I submit that shipbuilders


are engaged in an industry. I am asking the Secretary of State whether shipbuilders are engaged in an industry and are included in sub-paragraph (ii) and, therefore, are entitled to the grant of £30 instead of £36 for the houses which they would occupy.
It is manifest to me—I am not saying this for the purpose of delay or of obstruction—that there is an overlapping between sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii). Therefore, I want the Secretary of State to explain the difference between the two sub-paragraphs, and to say whether there is not overlapping between them. If there is, in common honesty he should take back the Money Resolution and have it redrafted.

Mr. Cyril Bence: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) has been concerned about this agricultural industrial question. It is one pertinent to the sub-paragraphs of the Money Resolution. It is a pertinent question whether the man who works on the land, and produces the chips that go with fish, should get a higher subsidy than the man who produces the potatoes from which come the chips which go with the fish. One who produces the ships which carry the fish gets a smaller subsidy for his house than the fellow who produces the potatoes which make the chips which go with the fish, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend is entitled to pose that very important question.
We know very well that it is a good thing to encourage people to go on to the land to produce more potatoes to produce more chips to go with the more fish which my hon. and learned Friend's constituents will catch in the North Sea provided that we encourage industrial workers to produce more ships to go to get the fish which go with the chips which come from the potatoes more of which we encourage workers to produce. I could elaborate the matter, but I will not detain the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the very important question put by my hon. and learned Friend.
I am very concerned about this Money Resolution and I am concerned about the regulations which undoubtedly will flow from it. Most local authorities in Scot-

land—and, I suppose, most in England and Wales, too—the small burghs, the town clerks and provosts receive from the Scottish Office in Edinburgh regulations and other documents which very often cause them a good deal of confusion. Indeed, some of them do not understand them and give up in despair trying to act upon them. I will tell a story, not directly related to this matter, but which illustrates—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member will be out of order."] The relevance of the story is that it illustrates—[Interruption.]

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member had better not tell his story, as it would not seem to be relevant to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Bence: It is relevant to the figures issued by the Government to the local authorities, and regulations under which they can claim certain moneys. It is a very moot point, especially when one has a different monetary grant for different purposes and for different types of things. It happened in the Burgh of Milngavie, where a man raised the matter by complaining that he had been on the list for eight years—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going very far from the Money Resolution.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. It is a very good story. If I could tell it it would illustrate how many of our Tory and so-called progressive councillors are unable to do the things which the Government desire them to do because they just do not understand some of the documents issued from St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh.
However, as you have forbidden me to tell it, Sir Gordon, I will come to a question about which many of my constituents in Clydebank are very concerned. They are glad that agricultural workers will get the £36 subsidy. They wish they were getting it. They want them to get that subsidy. But what are agricultural workers? Who are they? There are blacksmiths and all sorts of other people. Men who work in John Brown's pose this question to me. Many of them are anglers and go out fishing and when they go fishing they come across water bailiffs and many of them have been picked up by gamekeepers. Is a gamekeeper an agricultural worker?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He does not work at all.

Mr. Bence: Is he a member of the agricultural population and entitled to a £36 subsidy? Is he? A gamekeeper? A plater in John Brown's shipyard in Clydebank is to have a subsidy of only £24, while a gamekeeper in the county of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—

Mr. Hughes: Gamekeepers are extinct in that part of the world.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I am glad that the poachers in Ayrshire are in so enviable a position. But here we have an important point. Surely we are not going to have a situation where coal miners have to have houses with a cut subsidy of £24 while gamekeepers are going to be put in houses with a subsidy of £36. Miners live in houses in rural areas; the districts are agricultural, and are the miners at Twechar and Cardonald going to have their housing accommodation cut to £24, while gamekeepers in Stirlingshire and round about will benefit from the £36?
Another question is the Burgh of Kirkintilloch. That burgh is going to take two thousand people from the Glasgow slums.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They are talking about it.

Mr. Bence: Well, they are discussing it, and they may be selective; and although the spirit of Kirkintilloch is excellent, it is not provided in bottles. It is not that sort of spirit, and when the selection is made for people from Glasgow for Kirkintilloch they will no doubt be informed that it is a "dry" burgh, which will be welcomed; but if I talk of the imperfections of "wet" towns as against "dry", once again I shall be out of order. The fact is that Kirkintilloch builds houses to help clear the Glasgow slums, and the people coming in have the benefit of a subsidy of £42.
Kirkintilloch has slums of its own; and the people in them will be rehoused by the Burgh of Kirkintilloch. Yet they will have a subsidy of only £24—and all this is in the same burgh! We have, in other words, two families. One moves from Glasgow, and another from one part of Kirkintilloch to another part. The first

family has £42 and the other, £24. It is absolutely absurd. It will also be the position in Milingavie if they accept overspill population from Glasgow.
Let us now have a look at paragraph A (a, ii), which states that
in the case of a house provided by a local authority in accordance with arrangements made with the approval of the Secretary of State as being desirable by reason of special circumstances for the provision of housing accommodation … in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, thirty pounds".
A new factory goes up at Cumbernauld, and the allowance for a worker in that factory is £42. But if houses are built in Clydebank to take specialists for industrial needs—I think some have been taken by the Admiralty—the allowance is £30, and not £42. Why is it that in a burgh or county area, where an industry needs specialist workers, whatever they may do, there is a subsidy of £30? In a new town a worker will come, not from the Glasgow overspill, but from some other part of the country, but they will enjoy the subsidy of £42.
In an ordinary burgh or county area where new industry is built and specialist workers have to be brought in, and the local authority is empowered to build houses for them, they will benefit only from the lower subsidy. I can understand the £42 for town development for overspill, but when houses are provided for the special needs of industry they are provided not only in the new towns but in the old towns as well.
Only a few years ago workers were coming from the south—engineers, technicians, designers, tool makers and so on—to Airdrie and Coatbridge and even into the Clyde Valley area, into Glasgow. Firms were given special allocations of houses to accommodate key workers. Why the houses of key workers who come to Airdrie, Coatbridge, Clydebank, Milngavie or Kirkintilloch should bear a subsidy of only £30 when the houses of the agricultural workers bear one of £36 and those in the new towns one of £42, I do not know. Why the differentiation?
The urgent needs of industry may be given as the cause, but every house which is built in Clydebank is in the interests of industry. It is the urgent need of the big factories, the shipyards or Singer's that their workers should live as near to


their work as possible. They are always urging the town council to build more houses, because every family house is good for the industrialists and for industrial production. Every house is part of urgent industrial need.
I ask the Secretary of State to cut the Money Resolution down. I do not see why we should have all these varying rates of subsidy for divisions of houses and classifications which it will be most difficult for him to deal with. It will certainly be most difficult for the local authority, which must seek the agreement of the Secretary of State. If a local authority has a plan to build 40 or 50 houses, it will say that they are for the urgent needs of local industries which wish to house workers coming into the area. Will the Secretary of State accept that? What is the position?
These questions should be answered so that the local authorities will know exactly what is meant by all these different classifications of houses. In Dunbartonshire, and, I am sure, in Ayrshire, there are areas which are part agricultural and part industrial. There are many miners and railwaymen who not only do their jobs on the railways and in the mines but also do some agricultural work as well. It is often the practice of some railwaymen, especially the gangers who work on the lines, to have a house alongside the line and a smallholding as well. What are they—agricultural or industrial workers? They are a bit of both. On which basis would they claim the subsidy? One need only go on the West Highland Railway to see the little stations where the station master and the signalman each have a croft. What are they—industrial or agricultural workers? If they want a new house under which head do they claim a subsidy—as crofters or as railwaymen?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. The railwayman in a small signal box in a rural area may qualify for a subsidy of £24, and a comparatively wealthy farmer on a farm adjoining the station may qualify for the £36 subsidy.

Mr. Bence: if that is so, it is extraordinary.

Mr. Hughes: Actually, the farmer is subsidised twice.

Mr. Bence: He gets his cowshed subsidised as well as his house. I do not want to go out of order, but my hon. Friend shocks me when he says that the local authority will get a subsidy of £36 to build a house for the farmer.
The farmer will have the house built for him by the local authority and the local authority will receive the £36 subsidy to built it for the farmer to house his worker. Yet when the local authority builds a house for a railwayman to work for the nationalised railway it will receive only £24. That, of course, is the Government's bias against a nationalised industry. It is a shocking thing, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire for pointing it out to me.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the farmer might be getting three times the income?

The Deputy-Chairman: Will hon. Members please address the Chair and not have private conversations?

Mr. Hughes: I beg your pardon, Sir Gordon. This is a very important point. My hon. Friend is pointing out the various anomalies in the Financial Resolution. The railwayman may be paying in his rates the subsidy to the farmer who may have three times his income. The anomaly that we are trying to get at is the definition of an agricultural population. Is a porter or a comparatively poorly paid signalman who helps to get the lime to the farmer and get his potatoes away a member of the agricultural population? If so, what justification is there for giving the farmer a benefit which will result in a lower rent for the farmer's son than for the signalman?

The Deputy-Chairman: The definition of "agricultural population" is a matter for the Bill and not for the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: it is also in the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Bence: That is the difficulty, and I want to know what exactly is meant by "agricultural population." The more points I hear about these classifications the more worried I get about the definition.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can put forward any definition of agricultural population he likes on the Bill, but he should not argue that at the moment.

Mr. Bence: That means that if we approve the Money Resolution and then in Committee we are told by the Secretary of State that the agricultural population includes only certain elements, we cannot suggest that other elements should be brought in.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We can.

Mr. Bence: And certain elements like gamekeepers can be thrown out. I am much happier now, because we shall know what Amendments to propose in Committee. We shall exclude gamekeepers and perhaps a few poachers.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I point out, with the greatest respect, Sir Gordon, that you have ruled that the definition of an agricultural worker is in the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not. I have indicated that it can be discussed when we debate the Bill. That is the proper time to discuss it and not now.

Mr. Bence: I thank you very much for those last remarks, Sir Gordon. They have helped me considerably. I shall now feel better armoured to move Amendments in Committee so that we shall have a better definition in the Bill.

11.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I am extremely pleased that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is now happier.

Mr. Woodburn: I take it that the Closure will be moved when the right hon. Gentleman sits down. There were one or two points on factories which I raised yesterday and which I wanted to have cleared up, not from the point of view of any fillibustering but of making the Bill a success. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's rising to speak does not mean that the Closure will be moved immediately he finishes and that we shall not be able to put the points that I had in mind. I refrained from rising in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
Unless the right hon. Gentleman wants to stop further discussion, I think that it would be wise to allow my hon. Friend to speak and allow me to put my points, and then the right hon. Gentleman can close the debate in the proper way.

Mr. Maclay: I rose in complete innocence because I thought it might be helpful to the Committee to speak now. Far be it from me to wish to stop expression of opinion, but there have been so many questions asked that if I get many more it will be almost impossible to deal with them. It is already difficult—

Mr. Woodburn: With great respect to the Minister, that means that the Secretary of State is either going to answer in two bites or is only to answer the questions which have been put so far and not to answer the rest which may be put subsequently. I would take a dim view if, after I put some points to him, they are not mentioned in his reply. There are one or two points I want to put in view of his very kind response last night in trying to clear up the points I put then. There are one or two more on the Resolution on which I should like clarity.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I wish also to associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I have sat patiently in the Committee and hoped to draw attention to some matters.

Mr. Maclay: I have taken part in a fair number of these debates, particularly in Opposition, and it has been quite normal for the Minister to get up and to try to help the discussion. So far as I know, that does not preclude further discussion.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Is it not manifestly impossible for the Secretary of State to reply to points which are made after he has spoken?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Secretary of State can speak as often as he likes.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Maclay: With this rather hesitating start, not through my fault, I will try to give such help as I can to the debate. I assure hon. Members opposite that it is far from my mind that they should not make any further remarks they wish and, if necessary, I will try to deal with them in due course.
There seem to have been certain misunderstandings. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East expressed some doubts, but he will realise that Financial Resolutions are drawn according to precedent in certain ways. I hope that everything I have to do will be as generous as possible. The hon. Member will have to explore that when we reach the Committee stage on the Bill.
I was asked to give an explanation of the Financial Resolution. I do not think the Committee would expect me to go into the greatest of detail. I was asked why it was so long and detailed. Quite obviously it is in the form we thought best—the main purpose is to seek authority for the payment to local authorities of monies in respect of housing accommodation and, in particular, the new housing subsidies under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill and the town development grant which will be payable in accordance with regulations under Clause 14. That is a simple explanation of what the Resolution is about.
The new subsidies are dealt with under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of head A. Under (a) there is a subsidy of £24 for 60 years for houses to meet approved needs; of £30 for houses to meet the urgent needs of industry and £36 for houses provided for the agricultural population; and £42 for overspill purposes within the meaning of Part II of the Bill. That is a straightforward explanation which I think hon. Members wanted. Paragraph (b) relates to the new subsidy for high flats which I explained yesterday will be calculated on the Exchequer bearing two-thirds of the additional estimated cost over that of ordinary houses. Paragraph A (c) deals with the additional subsidy payable in remote areas, and, as the Committee knows, no change has been made in this respect. The general considerations underlying the new subsidy structure were explained fully yesterday by my hon Friend and myself, and I do not think I need add anything at this

stage [Interruption.] I was asked for some explanation of the length and detail, and I have been giving that explanation.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is now explaining the detail. I asked him to say why we have the detail and why we have this form. Why is the Money Resolution in this form?

Mr. Maclay: Because if we are dealing with a large number of things this is the best way to get the money which we need for the Bill, so I am informed.

Mr. Ross: But the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Maclay: I have not given way again.

Mr. Ross: Very well I can speak again later.

Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene now, I will give way.

Mr. Ross: No, I will wait till later.

Mr. T. Fraser: If my hon. Friend does not wish to intervene now, perhaps I may do so. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what is in the Money Resolution. What we did not learn yesterday, and what we want to know tonight before we approve this Money Resolution, is how the Secretary of State arrived at the figures set out in it. As I said yesterday, we know how the figures were arrived at under previous housing subsidy legislation, but we have not been told how the figures in this Money Resolution were arrived at.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is raising a point which was mentioned yesterday. I think that between my hon. Friend and myself, as well as by means of other speeches from this side of the Committee, very detailed explanations were given of the whole structure of the Bill, and I think that the hon. Member may be able properly to pursue that point in Committee. I do not think it is relevant to this point. We have set out the sums that we believe are correct for the job to be done. and that is the full explanation.

Mr. Fraser: But the point is that if the Money Resolution goes through in its present form I shall not be able in Committee to move that the sum of £24


should be £34, £44, or £54. It may well be that if we make any sort of calculation such as was made before the previous subsidies were determined, the figure would be one of those figures that I have just suggested. But since we shall not be able to discuss those matters in Committee if this Resolution goes through, surely it is all the more necessary for the Secretary of State to explain to the Committee why he has written these figures into this Money Resolution.

Mr. Maclay: The answer to that question is that the figures have been arrived at in a most genuine endeavour to get a proper balance between the tenant, the ratepayer and the taxpayer. We worked on that and produced a figure which we believe is the correct one in the circumstances.

Mr. Fraser: Was there any calculation?

Mr. Maclay: Obviously, there were calculations, and it is a question of how to get a balance. We believe that we have got a proper balance.
I will go on with a little more detail. Paragraph A (d) is concerned with the grant which will be payable on the basis that I explained yesterday in connection with town development. Then one goes on to the other details in which I gather the Committee is not particularly interested, although I thought they might be.
Let me come to the question of Amendments. Of course, I cannot possibly lay down at this moment what Amendments are going to be accepted in Committee. It is entirely for the Chair to decide in due course what Amendments will or will not be admissible in Committee. But it is inevitable—and I should be less than frank if I did not say this—that there are some good precedents. I would mention only one of the earlier precedents set by the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946. If one looks at that Financial Resolution, it will be realised that it was drawn in a very wide form. That is the precedent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Secretary of State is referring to some obscure Clause of the Act of 1946. I wonder if he could read it out to the Committee?

Mr. Maclay: It is by no means an obscure Clause, but a very long and detailed Financial Resolution which, if he will look at it in the Library, the hon. Member will find is highly relevant to what I say. It would, indeed, become tedious repetition if I were to repeat something of that length dealt with in 1946.
It is inevitable, and in accordance with precedent, that in subsidy and other money Bills the Financial Resolution should closely reflect the money provisions of the Bill, and if the Government of the day are to be able to discharge their responsibility to the taxpayer that is the basis on which Financial Resolutions must be drawn. In fact, the present Resolution has been drawn as widely as is reasonable and possible. If hon. Members will look at A (c) and B they will see that the references to remote areas and to the Scottish Special Housing Association are in very wide terms.

Mr. Willis: Does what the Secretary of State is saying mean, in plain language, that we shall not be able to move any Amendment to any of these amounts in the Bill? Is that what it means?

Mr. Maclay: I have stated that I am not prepared to prejudge what the Chairman of the Committee will say, but it is quite clear that certain parts of the Financial Resolution are drawn in such a way that we cannot increase the sum of money under the Bill. That is a provision that all Financial Resolutions include.

Mr. Hughes: Sir Gordon, could you not guide us here? If we, in this Committee, accept the figure of £24, would it, in your judgment, be in order to move an Amendment in Committee, after passing the Financial Resolution, to increase the £24 to £34?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is impossible for me to tell. It is a matter for the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Hughes: With due respect, Sir Gordon, I am seeking your guidance. If we pass this Financial Resolution, does it mean that we agree to the £24 and will not be able to discuss it further?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member can judge that situation as well as I but what Amendments will be in


order on this Bill is a matter for the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Maclay: I repeat that hon. Members will find that this Money Resolution is drawn as generously as possible, and on the proper lines on which such Resolutions must be drawn.
Perhaps I may now come to deal in detail with some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), and certain other hon. Members, was particularly concerned about factories, and it is the point which was, I think, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Woodbunn: I was not able to intervene.

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get up.

Mr. Woodburn: if the Secretary of State wants to deal with the point, I will put it now. The Joint Under-Secretary yesterday gave us some information about what was possible under the Bill. This Financial Resolution, as I gather, controls what is proposed in the Bill, but I gather also from what was said yesterday by the hon. Gentleman that by Clause 25 the local authority will be able to take advantage of the Distribution of Industry Act, and will also be able, by the same Clause, in the building of factories, to have exactly the same advantages as a new town or a Development Area has. Under Part IV, by Clause 25, it provides:
Section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945 (which confers on local planning authorities power to carry out certain development) shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (1) thereof to Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 included a reference to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
11.45 p.m.
If I understand that correctly, it means that in regard to the factories being built in a town for the overspill, the financial conditions of the Distribution of Industry Act will apply; and, therefore, while it is true that this Money Resolution may not provide for money for the building of factories in the overspill receiving areas, it is possible, because of this particular Clause in the Bill, that the receiving town will be able to take advantage of the financial provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act.
That is a very important point. If that is clear—and that is what I gathered from a study of the Bill and from what the hon. Gentleman said last night—then, of course, it meets a great deal of our difficulty. Anything we might move which was going to help the Secretary of State to carry out the purposes of his Bill, provided the finance is available under the Distribution of Industry Act, does not need to be provided for under this Bill.
I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we want the Bill to work. We see one or two possibilities of there being hitches on the financial side that would, perhaps, sterilise its operation. We, therefore, want to he sure that when we come to move helpful Amendments in regard to the town development Part, they will not be out of order simply because the Money Resolution for this Part of the Bill is drawn so tightly.
There is one further point I should like to raise in regard to compensation, which the hon. Gentleman said, under the Inland Revenue, was going to be payable for industries which were removed. It is not quite clear who pays that compensation. There was talk of the Inland Revenue. I take it that the Inland Revenue is not going to pay. Does that mean that the local authority pays it? If the local authority pays it, is there anything in any of the Acts which we have been discussing which provides for the local authority getting some assistance from the Government? Quite clearly, the whole Bill might break down if the local authority on the exporting end or the receiving end finds itself burdened with sums like £200,000 for one factory. Obviously any authority in such a situation would simply wash its hands of the whole affair, and even the Secretary of State would not be able to get it to move.
The question is: Has the State or have the Government any power under this Act or under the Distribution of Industry Act, which is provided for in Clause 25, to give financial assistance to either the local authority which is exporting or the local authority which is receiving, in regard to the purposes of the Bill?
I was very grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary yesterday, because he made quite clear that factories were not provided for under Clause 14, but it became clear, I think, at least to me, that Section 25 really meets our point. But if it does


not, then I would ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider holding this Money Resolution back just for a little while until he makes sure that the thing is not going to frustrate his own Bill. That is, surely, the purpose which has been behind a good many of the speeches which have been made tonight. It is simply that we should like the Money Resolution to be such that it will not frustrate the Bill and will allow the Secretary of State to carry out the purposes of his own Bill.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to reply to my questions. I think I have given him sufficient time to find out the answers.

Mr. Maclay: On the first part of the question, which deals with matters raised by other hon. Members, I think it is essential to get clear the difference between the Distribution of Industry Act and this Bill. My main point is that the Distribution of Industry Act deals with Development Areas, and what is possible under that Act continues but it has nothing to do with this Bill. This particular section deals with a very curious situation that arose in the past. Whatever the reason, it emerged that the Planning Acts could not be used in a Development Area: only the Distribution of Industry Act could be used there.
So this situation arose—that where there are certain powers under the 1945 and 1947 Town and Country Planning Acts, for local authorities to provide certain factories under certain conditions, they could not, because of some curious thing that happened in past legislation, do it in a Development Area, because the Distribution of Industry Act was the only Act that could operate in a Development Area. The reason for that Clause of the Bill is to put that anomaly right. I hope that is clear.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps I can put it this way. So far as I can see, Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act, confers on local authorities power to carry out certain developments. Quite clearly the Town and Country Planning Act does not refer to Development Areas. But the part of that Act is now going to read as if it included the powers of the Distribution of Industry Act. There-

fore I take it that the Secretary of State is saying that if they have power to do something under the Town and Country Planning Act the money available will be the sums given under the Distribution of Industry Act.

Mr. Maclay: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not really got it straight yet. The trouble is that a combination of the Distribution of Industry Act and the Planning Acts produced an anomaly. Outside the Development Areas local authorities could, if they wanted to, use the powers given them under the Planning Acts. But they subsequently found they could not use these powers inside a Development Area. The only way of functioning inside was to use the Distribution of Industry Act, and this puts that anomaly right. But what my hon. Friend said yesterday is correct. This Bill now makes possible the provision by local authorities of factory space under the Planning Acts, and with the approval of the Secretary of State, to be let as a rule on an economic basis, inside the Development Areas as well as outside as at present. That is the explanation of that Clause. But I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be under any illusion. This does not change the Distribution of Industry Act.

Mr. Woodburn: This only refers to Glasgow so far as exporting industries are concerned. The main overspill is coming from Glasgow. Glasgow is a Development Area, and therefore I gather it will now be possible for Glasgow Corporation in this development inside Glasgow to have the benefit of the financial assistance of the Distribution of Industry Act to give compensation and to let the factories at an economic rate.

Mr. Maclay: This is a complicated question, which we must not get confused. The position remains completely unchanged. If the Board of Trade, under the Distribution of Industry Act, wants to do something inside a Development Area, it does it. This does not transfer the Board's powers. It merely says that the local authorities can do what they could not do before inside a Development Area—they can use the powers of the Planning Acts, which are not the same powers as the Distribution of Industry Act.
I think I have made the position as clear as possible. It is a curious, mixed-up history, but it was a ridiculous situation where it was found that the local authorities could function outside the Development Areas but not inside the Development Areas; that was the prerogative of the Board of Trade under the Distribution of Industry Act. I think that that makes the position clear, because, as I say, there are no powers in the Bill to provide Exchequer money for what, I think, the right hon. Gentleman wants. If it is done in future, it must be done under the Distribution of Industry Act in the way that that Act works. There is no change in the position of local authorities.

Mr. Woodburn: That brings us to the criticism with which we started. Does the Financial Resolution make it possible for the Government to help the local authorities in any way with compensation and the building of factories? That is a necessary part of the scheme. If the town development part works, there will be the export of population and of factories. Has the whole burden of this to be borne by the receiving authority in regard to factories, or is it possible for the Exchequer to give assistance to the receiving local authority?
When we come to make Amendments, will the Financial Resolution permit that to be done? If not, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that from the viewpoint of making a success of the Bill the right thing is to take the Financial Resolution away and bring it back in a form that allows the Secretary of State to make his own Bill work by helping these local authorities.

Mr. Maclay: It is dangerous to get into this amount of detail in a discussion on the Financial Resolution, because we dealt with it yesterday. I am trying to deal with it as well as I can, and I have given, up to now, a full explanation of the position. I am interpreting as quickly as I can at short notice a subject in which I was more expert yesterday than today, and one must be careful in trying to define what happens in complicated Clauses. The fact is that as far as concerns site clearance and development in accordance with a development scheme, of course the Bill provides for it; and that can be discussed under the appropriate Clauses of the Bill in Committee.
On the question of industry moving out of a town, I think that this is the position. If industry has to move, we are by no means convinced that the inducement of the type that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is necessary or desirable under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman thinks of the inducing factors in the Distribution of Industry Act. The way that the Bill is drafted is to try to provide for all reasonable facilities to move industry with overspill population. As was pointed out yesterday, it is believed that the compensation payable for disturbance and the rest should go a long way towards this.

Mr. Woodburn: Who pays the compensation?

Mr. Maclay: It is described in the Bill. I have not been able to check exactly the Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It is dealt with on the 50 per cent. basis, but I want to check the point accurately.
On the whole question of how industry is induced to move, we believe that the Bill will help enormously. I repeat, however, because I want there to he no misunderstanding, that the Distribution of Industry Act powers are not brought within the Bill, neither are local authorities being given powers at present possessed by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Woodburn: I am not clear about the Distribution of Industry Act. Obviously, there will be a considerable resistance from local authorities who are receiving factories in their areas if they have to be involved in the expense of building them without assistance. What is the position? Who is to pay the £200,000 compensation in the first place? Who is to pay for a factory when it is to be built in the new area? Is it to be the expense entirely of the firm, or is the local authority to build the factory? If the local authority builds the factory. have the Government any power under the Financial Resolution to help where necessary?

12 midnight.

Mr. Maclay: I take the second matter first. If the factory is moved and the local authority wants to use the Planning Acts powers it builds the factory but lets it at an economic rent. It has to rent it as an economic proposition. It does not get help for that because this is presumed


to be done as an economic job. The only restriction on its activities in that matter is that it has to get the approval of the Secretary of State who has to consider the project to see that it is likely to be economic.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, if the local authority acts under the Planning Acts it gets 50 per cent. grant.

Mr. Woodburn: What about the £200,000?

Mr. Maclay: That comes under the 50 per cent. grant. I think we are becoming rather confused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where in the Money Resolution there is any reference to the increase which is necessitated by this overspill provision for compensation for factories which are moved? That is a simple question.

Mr. Maclay: Paragraph C, which says:
To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid.
Then the hon. Gentleman has only to read through the rest of the Resolution.

Mr. Ross: That is what I said. The right hon. Gentleman is not making the matter any easier.

Mr. Maclay: I turn to some of the other questions raised. It is getting rather late.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman speaks for himself.

Mr. Maclay: I am thinking of the convenience of the Committee.
Questions were asked on the definition of an agricultural house. The definition of what qualifies as an agricultural house of the classes we are dealing with is in Section 85 (3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which states:
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the annual expenditure likely to be incurred by the local authority in respect of any house is, in consequence of the remoteness of the site thereof from centres of supply of building labour and material, substantially greater than the equivalent of "—

so and so. It is a question of remoteness and comes to the Secretary of State for consideration.
Agricultural population is defined in Section 184, the Interpretation Section, of the same Act, as meaning:

"(a) in relation to persons resident within a large burgh, persons who are engaged in agriculture, and includes the dependants of such persons; and
(b) in relation to persons resident outside a large burgh, persons who are, or in their latest occupation were, engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture, and includes the dependants of such persons."
That deals with the chips as well as the fish, I think.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question about the cowman and the milkman. Is a milkman engaged in agriculture?

Mr. Bence: Or a gamekeeper?

Mr. Maclay: I have read the definition, and I shall not now attempt to redefine it. It would be quite improper for me to do so. The definition is quite clear. If the hon. Member wants to question it, he can, perhaps, do so in Committee on the Bill.
I come to another question, which was, what do the words "or improved" mean?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question with which I was dealing. I dealt with the overlapping. My submission was that paragraphs A (ii) and (iii) overlap because they relate to the same kind of classes of persons coming to an area to meet the urgent needs of industry. My submission was that agriculture is an industry. It manifestly is an industry, and sub-paragraph (iii) deals with the agricultural population. That overlaps with the previous sub-paragraph. It deals with the same class of people.

Mr. Maclay: I do not agree that there is any overlapping, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman is in doubt, he knows very well that it can be dealt with as a Committee point. In any case, it is not a Money Resolution matter. I do not think there is any substance in his point.
May I just say something about this word "improvement"? That reference is necessary because of the provision in paragraph 10 of Part II of the First Schedule of the Bill—where it deals with


improvement grants to local authorities. If hon. Members will look that up they will find a full and adequate explanation.
I should hate to get into any discussion between Aberdeen and Ayrshire as to what might be proper to ask, but I think that we have dealt with the fish.

Mr. Bence: What about potatoes?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think potatoes come in; but here again, if there is doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the matter can be fully discussed in the Committee. In the circumstances I think it fair to hope that, having given full explanations, the Committee will now pass this Money Resolution.

Mr. Ross: On this question of the word "improvement"> although it is mentioned in the preamble to the Money Resolution—there it is "improved"—when one comes to look at the Resolution itself, there is no reference at all in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d).

Mr. Maclay: The reference I have made is to paragraph 10 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. Hon. Members will see it there in the fourth line.

Mr. Ross: But there is no reference to it in A, B, C, or D.

Mr. Maclay: The word is explained by the explanation I have given. That is the answer, and that is that.

Mr. T. Fraser: It must be said that the right hon. Gentleman has been painstaking in his reply. He has endeavoured to reply to all the points which have been raised, but the words with which he resumed his seat were evidence, in themselves, that this Money Resolution ought not to be proceeded with tonight. He has conceded that it is necessary to have it to permit the provision of money for the improvement of houses. Yet he has failed to show us where there is any provision for the allocation of money for the improvement of houses of any sort or any kind.
There are a few other things which he failed to do in justification of his Money Resolution. I was unwilling that this Resolution should go through in its present form unless I could have some justification for the precise subsidies set out in the Money Resolution. The precise sums which will undoubtedly limit us in

the matter of the amendments which we shall be able to submit during the Committee stage.
The right hon. Gentleman called attention to a Money Resolution submitted by the Labour Government in 1946. I think I am in order in saying that on previous occasions the Government of the day have demonstrated to the Committee in offering a Financial Resolution —and this applies to the Conservative Government of 1952—the formula adopted in arriving at a particular subsidy figure, but this time the Government have given no formula at all. In reply to a question by me a little while ago, the right hon. Gentleman said he thought that this figure provided a right balance; but he submitted the figure only as one which provided a right balance. It seems not to have been arrived at by the adopttion of any formula, and it is necessary for us to have a formula.
We think that the figure in the Resolution should be higher, but we are not able to put down an Amendment to increase it. That will undoubtedly limit us in what we shall be able to say during the Committee stage of the Bill, and of course it will definitely limit the Amendments which the Chair will see fit to call. Does not the Secretary of State agree that the passage of the Resolution in its present form tonight makes virtually redundant the Committee stage of at least Part I of the Bill? There will be no possibility of amending the Bill in any material way.
The right hon. Gentleman had a little to say about the definition of the agricultural population. My hon. Friends wondered why the Resolution offered a different subsidy for houses for agricultural workers from that offered for other workers' houses. I had always understood that the reason for paying a higher subsidy in respect of those houses was twofold: first, that normally they are built in small groups in rural areas and cost much more to build: and, secondly, usually the tenants are workers with low wages and therefore must be offered houses at reasonably low rents.
We understand that the annual burden on the average house built in the towns in Scotland will be about £117. For an agricultural worker's house it will be considerably more—even £126. That would leave a sum of £90 to be found by the


local authority. If it is not paid in rent we wonder who will subsidise the agricultural worker or the farmer who employs him. If the figure of £36 is written in the Resolution, and if it is passed tonight, we will be prevented from seeking to increase it in Committee upstairs. We will, therefore, be requiring that the tenants of the other council houses within the area will subsidise the farm worker in the house he occupies instead of the subsidy for that house coming from the same source as the subsidy for the farmer's pig sty—the central Government.
When he sought to deal with the provision of money to facilitate the town development proposals in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman showed quite clearly the hopeless inadequacy of the Money Resolution. He said. in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that there was the provision in paragraph C, which says that the Resolution is:
To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid.
The Secretary of State then gave the impression to the whole Committee that under this part of the Financial Resolution he would be assisting the local authorities in the compensation that they would pay to the industries displaced in Glasgow to facilitate the transfer of the overspill population. He would also be able to facilitate the building by the receiving authority of the necessary factories to accommodate the industry that was moving with the overspill population.
12.15 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman, however, was so hesitant in his references to this part of the Financial Resolution that he certainly left me in the gravest doubt as to its adequacy. Glasgow is asked to spill its population into another area. It might be into Blantyre or into Hamilton, which has been suggested as a possible town for the purpose. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that if Hamilton took 10,000 of Glasgow's population and Glasgow felt obliged to send some industries with the population, the Secretary of State would make a contribution to Glasgow Corporation if it

decided to clear an industry, as it cleared part of the Gorbals. The contribution would be sufficient to encourage Glasgow to pay compensation to the industry. The Joint Under-Secretary gave as an illustration yesterday the payment of £200,000 to an industry employing 300 workers.
Inasmuch as there is some assistance here for the sending authority, it is hopelessly inadequate. Glasgow will find it difficult enough to find £14 per house per annum for ten years to export its rateable value, without finding in addition £100,000 for the employment of its workers. And it is not 300 workers who will have to be exported but 300,000 of the population. Glasgow will not be able to face that, and the provisions of the Financial Resolution are hopelessly inadequate to facilitate the operation which the Secretary of State hopes to carry out.
I can assure the Secretary of State that if the town of Hamilton is to take 8,000 or 10,000 of Glasgow's people—and Hamilton is very highly rated at present —it will certainly not be able to undertake to borrow £500,000 to build factories to accommodate the industries corning from Glasgow. I doubt very much whether the Secretary of State would give his approval to any such application by the burgh of Hamilton if it were so misled as to make it.
The smaller local authorities in Scotland are not able to raise money to build factories. If the overspill industry is not going to Hamilton but to Bellshill, Shotts or even out to Strathaven—and that idea has also been canvassed—does the right hon. Gentleman imagine for one moment that Lanark County Council will raise the money to build factories in those places? It, of course, will not. The right hon. Gentleman's town development proposals will be facilitated only if the Financial Resolution is sufficiently widely drawn to enable us to move Amendments in Committee which will put the financial responsibility fairly and squarely where it belongs.
This is a matter of great national concern. It is a matter that must be faced by the nation. It has been faced by the nation in the case of London by the provision of eight new towns. I submit to the Secretary of State that all he has said in justification of the Money Resolution this evening has only convinced some of us and confirmed us in our


former conviction that it ought not to be pressed tonight.

Mr. Bence: This morning.

Mr. Fraser: This morning. It ought not to be pressed at this sitting of Parliament. It ought to be withdrawn. By insisting on this Money Resolution, the Secretary of State is making it impossible for the Committee upstairs either to amend or seek to amend Part I of the Bill as the local authorities, with the sole exception of Edinburgh, wish to see it amended. It will make impossible amendment of Part II of the Bill in the way local authorities principally concerned with town development are anxious to see the Bill amended and certainly impossible to amend Part II so as to give effect to proposals made to the Secretary of State in a letter in a publication by the Town and Country Planning Association asking for town development. That letter asked straight and plain that the Government should accept financial responsibility for the transfer of industry with the transfer of population. That clearly is not provided for in the Financial Resolution.
There is a sum of money provided to help local authorities with deficits accruing from the acquisition of land, the clearing of land, and, I think, for the provision of water supplies and sewerage services. I believe there is some provision for a contribution towards compensation which will be paid by the planning authority if factories have to be cleared under the planning Acts, but I think that kind of compensation is hopelessly inadequate. If that is all the compensation provided for in the Resolution, the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in the House yesterday, which would have the support of my hon. Friends, will not be able to be put to the Committee upstairs in the form of an Amendment to the Bill.

It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman will be frustrated in what he seeks to do and will be unable to consider helpful Amendments from both sides of the Scottish Grand Committee if he proceeds with this Resolution in its present form. In all these circumstances, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take the Resolution back. He has nothing to gain by pressing it on the Committee of the whole House tonight; he has everything to lose by having it passed tonight. Let him seek to ensure that Scotsmen will be given more control over Scottish affairs by allowing the Scottish Grand Committee to speak for the Scottish local authorities when we get the Bill upstairs. Let the Scottish Members of Parliament in Scottish Grand Committee seek to work out their own town development legislation suited to the needs of Scotland. That will be possible only if we get a vastly different Money Resolution from this which we are considering tonight. Let the right hon. Gentleman take this Resolution away. Let him bring a more generous Money Resolution which will allow Scottish Members to discuss the real needs of Scotland and produce legislation accordingly.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Dr. Dickson Mabon rose—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Edward Heath: Mr. Edward Heath rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. T. Fraser: All Scottish legislation is gagged.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 106, Noes 0.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[12.27 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bryan, P.
Errington, Sir Eric


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Arbuthnot, John
Cole, Norman
Glover, D.


Armstrong, C. W.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Barber, Anthony
Crouch, R. F.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Barter, John
Currie, G. B, H.
Green, A.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Dance, J. C. G.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bidgood, J. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Body, R. F.
Drayson, G. B.
Hesketh, R. F.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.




Hope, Lord John
Mathew, R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Maude, Angus
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mawby, R. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Neave, Airey
Storey, s.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Johnson, Eric (Blackiey)
Oakshott, H, D.
Teeling, W.


Joseph, Sir Keith
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Temple, J. M.


Kaberry, D.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Kirk, P. M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Leavey, J. A.
Partridge, E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Leburn, W. G.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pott, H. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Price, Henry (Lewisham, w.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Roper, Sir Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W.
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Hughes-Young.




NOES


Nil


TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Bence and Mr. Emrys Hughes

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.